W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > September 2014

Re: Turtle Patch simplification (N3 Patch?)

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 18:38:31 -0400
Message-ID: <5425EAE7.8050406@dbooth.org>
To: Reto Gmür <reto@wymiwyg.com>, "henry.story@bblfish.net" <henry.story@bblfish.net>
CC: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
[Trimmed the CC list to avoid cross posting.]

Hi Reto,

On 09/24/2014 04:26 PM, Reto Gmür wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think the wish to "remove triples containing specific blank node" is
> misguided and bases on a wrong concept on the semantics of blank nodes.
>
> Now I know there's the never-ending discussion about blank nodes being
> to complicated. I'm and advocate of freedom: if you think blank nodes
> are too complex, don't use them.

It's not as easy as that.  You would *also* have to avoid using anyone 
else's RDF data (unless you could be sure that the data didn't have 
blank nodes), and that would rather defeat the purpose of the Semantic 
Web.

Furthermore, blank nodes are an undeniable convenience in some ways. 
Who would want to have to write -- or read -- the following without 
using blank nodes?

  ex:ds1 ex:contains
     [ ex:location 8
       ex:magnitudes ( 3 3 1 2 4 ) . ] ,
     [ ex:location 8
       ex:magnitudes ( 4 2 3 4 1 ) . ] ,
     [ ex:location 9
       ex:magnitudes ( 5 1 4 6 4 ) . ] .

I certainly would not!

I think a more nuanced solution would be more preferable than avoiding 
blank nodes entirely.  A successful technology needs to strike the right 
balance between power and simplicity, and I don't think we have quite 
hit the right balance yet in RDF's treatment of blank nodes.

David
Received on Friday, 26 September 2014 22:39:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:53 UTC