Re: deterministic naming of blank nodes

> On 21 May 2015, at 11:06, 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

There’s nothing wrong with dereferencing a skolem URI. That’s what makes it better than a bNode label.

It’s perfectly legal to have something at the other end.

- Steve

Received on Friday, 22 May 2015 11:19:09 UTC