- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 16:23:49 +0000
- To: public-linked-json@w3.org, RDF-WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 17/02/13 15:56, Manu Sporny wrote: > On 02/17/2013 08:15 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: >> I do not think so. I actually do not have a strong opinion on the >> bnodes-as-graph-labels issue. What I am uneasy about is that, *if we >> use them*, they would represent a different semantics as IRI-s which >> is my understanding of Pat's emails. That is all. > > Can we fix this based on what the RDF WG suggested that we do for > JSON-LD? By creating a special form of fragment identifier to deal with > the situation? I realize that IRIs-as-graph-names can currently be used > for both denoting a graph and naming-but-not-denoting a graph use cases. > What if we do something like this: > > In general, graph names denote the graph (both IRIs and Blank Node > Identifiers). > > If a developer wants to use an IRI that names-but-does-not-denote the > graph, they can append a "special" fragment identifier (that is > specifically called out in one of the RDF specs) to the IRI. Something like: > > http://example.com/graphs/1#_:unnamed OR > http://example.com/graphs/1#_graphname:123 > > We might even want to create a new class of non-IRI value to > name-but-not-denote a graph: > > _connotation:27392 > > It seems to me that the case where we name-but-do-not-denote a graph is > more rare than the case where we want to denote a graph by its name. Can > somebody point to the discussion where we decided that we can't do this? > Or rather, who in this group would strongly oppose this general approach? > > Like some of the others on this list, I'd also not prefer that graph > names do anything other than denoting the graph. I don't want to revisit > the issue to debate it to death again. A simple preference straw-poll at > the next telecon might show us that this idea is/isn't worth pursuing. > > -- manu The most common usage in real use that I have seen is using the URL of the location where graph was read from. For many applications the g-box/g-snap distinction is simply not of interest. Andy
Received on Sunday, 17 February 2013 16:24:24 UTC