Re: JSON-LD bnode canonical naming algorithm

>
> I know somebody who is named Bob.
> I am related to somebody that has high cholesterol
> I know somebody, that likes somebody who owns a dog.
> What is that thing that has a tail with spikes in it?
>

Why are these important statements to support? Why are they more important
than simliar statements that RDF and Linked Data already do not support,
like:

Everybody I know loves pizza.
If you love pizza, you'll definitely love calzones.
You can never have too much pizza or too little tornado damage.
There's no way to tell if a pizza is really good without eating it, but
maybe we should wait until the tornado passes.

Not to mention that the six degress of Kevin Bacon game would be
> impossible to represent in Linked JSON!
>

So what? We could represent the *data* for the game very easily. It just
involves actors and films. You'll have a hard time representing Asteroids or
Volleyball in Linked JSON, either. Who cares? We're just trying to make an
interchange format for graph-shaped data. At least that's what I think we
ought to be doing. Or doing first, at least.

So in the end this seems like a classically circular argument to me: We must
support blank nodes because there are things you can say with blank nodes.
But it doesn't follow that we need to be able to say all those things in LD,
much less in JSON-LD. Blank nodes as existential quantification get into
expressing logical assertions, not just serializing data. I maintain that
this is weird. Triply so when you consider that RDF *doesn't* have universal
quantification, implication, or any of the *other* obvious peers from logic.
Has anybody ever criticized CSV for lacking existential quantification? XML?
JSON itself?

glenn