- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 12:27:33 -0400
- To: "henry.story@bblfish.net" <henry.story@bblfish.net>, Steve Harris <steve.harris@aistemos.com>
- CC: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, ahogan@dcc.uchile.cl, semantic-web@w3.org
On 05/21/2015 06:06 AM, henry.story@bblfish.net wrote: > >> On 21 May 2015, at 10:08, Steve Harris <steve.harris@aistemos.com> >> wrote: >> >> >>>> Alternatively, some SPARQL servers may use stable internal >>>> identifiers that could serve this purpose (still requiring >>>> normative normalization), but I suspect that there are some >>>> implementations that don’t guarantee such stable identifiers). >>> >>> Right, it would involve enhancing SPARQL servers. >> >> Quite a few can do this already, and there’s a syntax sanctioned by >> RDF 1.1 >> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-skolemization > > yes, except that skolemization using .well-konwn URLs is ugly, > broken, and should never have made it into RDF1.1 spec. It breaks > linked data clients that need to analyse the full uri for .wellknown > urls before deciding wether to follow them. it would be better to > have coined bnode URNs of some form. I made a suggestion along those > lines at some point. > > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2014Sep/0088.html FWIW I agree. I'm pretty sure I advocated for .well-known at the time (*ugh*), but in hindsight a URN prefix would have been a better hack. David Booth
Received on Thursday, 21 May 2015 16:28:02 UTC