Re: Why do we name nodes and not edges?

On 2012-07-31, at 00:38, トーレ　エリクソン wrote:

> Hugh Glaser wrote:
>> With respect to naming triples, at first sight it seems to me there is
>> a perfectly sensible way of doing it, as I described in an earlier
>> message. There is no need to describe a language for encoding the whole
>> triple a unique URI for the edge uniquely identifies the triple, and
>> seems quite natural.
>> This URI can then be subPropertyOf whatever it would have been in the
>> general form.
>> So we have gained identifiers for triples for the possible maximum cost
>> of one extra subPropertyOf triple for each triple to be identified.
>> And now RDF can be used to make statements about each triple (edge), and
>> I can do it all in Linked Data.
>> 
>> This doesn't immediately solve the same thing as Named Graphs, where
>> groups of triples/edges needed to be identified.
>> But can't the edges be gathered into Classes?
>> And with multiple inheritance, you can have arbitrary membership of
>> Classes by any edge, giving much more power than simple Named Graphs,
>> where triples/edges can only be members of one graph?
> 
> [snip]
> 
>> Is there anything technically wrong with what I am describing?
> 
> I find this solution quite intriguing as well. It would be easier to
> implement if RDF were to allow blank nodes in the predicate position.

You can't use bNodes (for fairly obvious semantic reasons) but you can put a genid URI (http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-skolemization), or a UUID URN there, which has lots of the same benefits from a usability point of view, but without the bizarre mathematical implications.

- Steve

-- 
Steve Harris, CTO
Garlik, a part of Experian
+44 7854 417 874  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93
Registered office: Landmark House, Experian Way, Nottingham, Notts, NG80 1ZZ

Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2012 12:32:58 UTC