Re: JSON-LD bnode canonical naming algorithm

>
> It sounds like your argument is: because we don't
> have feature X that we should also not have feature Y.


No, I'm saying that either you can have a "pure data" serialization, or you
can have a system for expressing logic, but it doesn't make any sense to me
to have data and existential quantification without universal quantification
and implication, and thus I don't buy existential quantification as an
argument for bnodes.

But then you say:

Expressing logical assertions are not the only use for blank nodes.
> There are more practical uses that we're concerned with - where a
> dereferenceable IRI doesn't make sense, but graph equality is a
> requirement. For instance, not everything needs a dereferenceable IRI in
> a transient, digitally-signed contract for the immediate exchange of
> virtual goods for cash. Creating IRIs here is a nuisance with
> considerable maintenance overhead.


And here I claim that uniquely identifying each node is what it means to
have a graph, and that doing so (which ought to be handled automatically by
your database) is far *less* of a construction and maintenance nuissance,
both conceptually and practically, than supporting unidentified nodes.

These are tradeoffs. You've got this mailing list because you didn't want to
be encumbered by all the RDF baggage that gotten loaded onto the RDF/JSON
effort. From my perspective, you're *still* lugging around way more baggage
than you need. If you think you can't travel without it, that's your
prerogative, just as it was every RDF purist's prerogative not to follow you
this far. But somebody else will be willing to ditch more, and then they
will race you, and then you will lose. Why not try to win?

glenn