W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2012

Re: Why do we name nodes and not edges?

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:32:25 +0100
Cc: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, Natasa Bulatovic <bulatovic@mpdl.mpg.de>, "<semantic-web@w3.org>" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-Id: <FA0358FD-BB38-4916-8499-9EA35977ABDE@garlik.com>
To: トーレ エリクソン <tore.eriksson@po.rd.taisho.co.jp>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:35 UTC