- From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 11:53:53 -0400
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- CC: glenn mcdonald <glenn@furia.com>, Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>, "public-linked-json@w3.org" <public-linked-json@w3.org>
On May 31, 2011, at 3:02 AM, Dan Brickley wrote: > On 30 May 2011 23:57, glenn mcdonald <glenn@furia.com> wrote: >>> or simply author using URIs for nodes having multiple references. >> >> +1 >> The idea that there even needs to be a "bnode canonical naming algorithm" >> seems to me close to proof that blank nodes should be dropped from JSON-LD. >> And from LD, period. And from RDF... > > My understanding is that one of the core values being explored on > public-linked-json is something like "accessibility of this stuff to > ordinary developers.". This includes concise, readable, > mainstream-style markup. > > It might be hard to balance that with a rigid rule "whenever you > mention any thing apart from basic strings and datatypes you MUST also > always supply a full URI in RFC2396 notation". Not necessary to supply a full URI. Note that "_:a" and "#a" look pretty similar, but given a @base, the later is a URI. Also, anonymous BNodes might still have a place, as they don't pose the same problem for normalization. My assertion on restricting named BNode use was really directed to normalized representations, not necessarily arbitrary graphs. > We have a classic design tradeoff here. There are costs associated > with not identifying things unambiguously. And there are costs > associated with being forced to supply Web identifiers for every > passing mention of any object. We annoy some developers by having > verbose URIs everywhere; we annoy others by not. That suggests to me > that this is not a decision that should be made at the core spec > level, but one that ought to be left to evolving deployment practice > instead. > > cheers, > > Dan
Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2011 15:55:19 UTC