W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > March 2011

Re: a blank node issue

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 20:50:16 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=SxyWsVeAJddJX49KNj5CoBq+25YbXvqCwHHc+@mail.gmail.com>
To: nathan@webr3.org
Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
On 2 March 2011 20:40, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
> Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>>
>> Reto,
>>
>> On 2 Mar 2011, at 18:50, Reto Bachmann-Gmür wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Is there any practical difference between bnodes and normal nodes,
>>>> except the scope (and necessity) of their name?
>>>
>>> Yes, a graph with bnodes can potentially be simplified: the same meaning
>>> may be expressed with a more lean graph, i.e. with less nodes and triples.
>>> If all your nodes are uris you cannot do simplifications with rdf
>>> entaillment.
>>
>> Reality check please!
>>
>> When was the last time you saw such a non-lean RDF graph in the wild,
>> outside of examples and test cases? Can you name a production system that
>> routinely performs the simplification you talk about, with user benefit?
>>
>> The question was about practice. You describe a thought experiment. I
>> think it's a good example of a complication in RDF that was added for sound
>> theoretical reasons, but has failed to deliver any value whatsoever in
>> practice.
>
> is the message here "blank nodes are useless, get rid of them / don't use
> them" ?

I would be very happy not to use bnodes (tho Im sure they will always
have some supporters), but, that aside, what about existing
implementations?

>
>
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2011 19:50:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:26 UTC