W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > May 2002

Re: bNodes wanted

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 02:18:01 -0400 (EDT)
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
cc: "Seaborne, Andy" <Andy_Seaborne@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "'Aaron Swartz'" <me@aaronsw.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0205260212280.22914-100000@tux.w3.org>
On Fri, 24 May 2002, Sandro Hawke wrote:

> I pointed out a few weeks ago that the hasURI property (which I called
> uname, since its important feature is that it's an unambiguous
> property, and TimBL calls log:uri) might reasonably be equated to
> rdf:about; doing so is a pure extension of M&S 1.0 and simplifies the
> whole RDF model *and* syntax.

I'm pretty sympathetic to this approach. I'm not sure there's a case for
trying to squeeze this into RDF Core somewhere (presumably in RDFS), given
that nobody seems to be doing it yet. Or if they have, they've not
reported their findings (hint hint...). In its favour is that it
de-magicalises the role of URIs within RDF. They can be
thought of as properties. This also sets up a possible way of dealing with
the old 'can resources have multiple URIs' FAQ, without pre-judging the wisdom
of the TAG and URI groups on this topic.

So has anyone out there built RDF-based systems using this approach? ie.
representing the URI labels for nodes with an RDF property? How has it
worked out?

Dan

ps. it's also closer to the model that the SOAP Encoding graph format
uses, as I understand it.

pps. maybe the forthcoming RDF datatypes draft will offer some insight.
The XML Schema datatypes include anyURI, for example... Haven't thought
this connection through entirely, must admit.
Received on Sunday, 26 May 2002 02:19:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:54 GMT