RE: Blank nodes for concepts. from Miles, AJ (Alistair) on 2004-02-09 (public-esw-thes@w3.org from February 2004)

From: Miles, AJ (Alistair) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 13:40:20 -0000
To: "'public-esw-thes@w3.org'" <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
Message-ID: <350DC7048372D31197F200902773DF4C049440E0@exchange11.rl.ac.uk>

Responding to Andy's mail:

> 
> Have I missed something here?  Is there any reason why the 
> concept *must* be
> blank?  

No, I never suggested that concepts must be blank.  I was merely offering it
as an alternative to using URIs.     

> I guess I don't see it as black-and-white.  There can be several names
> (URIs) for a thing.  If, later, that authority does assign 
> URIs, we add
> owl:sameAs rules.

Very true.  

Just to re-iterate, my main motivation for using blank nodes throughout the
deliverables was to make the examples more accessible to peoples less or not
at all familiar with RDF.  

Al.

Received on Monday, 9 February 2004 08:40:37 UTC