- 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