- From: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 23:42:00 +0200
- To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Cc: Hydra <public-hydra@w3.org>
> Do you see any problems with going down that route?
I don't see technical problems using blank nodes as identifiers.
We will need to explicitly mention this in ExplicitRepresentation though.
It just makes things a little harder to explain and understand TPF, but not impossible.
Blank nodes in their usual meaning are not interesting for TPF interfaces anyway.
For instance, suppose that a TPF interface gave a response containing
_:x a foaf:Person.
then there is no way to get more information about _:x,
because this blank node identifier is only valid in the scope of the response
(and thus means something different in the next request).
This is why, in responses, a TPF interface replaces blank nodes by well-knowns URIs.
An example is at http://data.linkeddatafragments.org/.well-known/genid/ugent-biblio/B1.
Does anybody see issues with using blank nodes to query patterns such as
_:x foaf:knows _:y
?
Best,
Ruben
Received on Tuesday, 23 June 2015 21:42:32 UTC