W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Blank Node Identifiers and RDF Dataset Normalization

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 21:48:03 -0500
Message-ID: <51297F63.1050400@digitalbazaar.com>
To: W3C RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
CC: JSON-LD CG <public-linked-json@w3.org>
On 02/20/2013 01:04 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> I haven't followed all the discussion about dataset normalization, 
> and I don't know the algorithm, but toward the end of today's call, 
> it sounded like the best option may be something like Create A New 
> URI Scheme.
> tag:w3.org,2000:graph:

Hey Sandro, thank you. This is very helpful and I've turned the
suggestion into a proposal, more below.

The discussion during last weeks RDF WG call on allowing blank node
identifiers for graph names was a bit of a train wreck. I apologize for
my part in not effectively communicating the situation and the purpose
for the proposals. It became obvious toward the end of the conversation
that we were all talking past each other and a different approach would
have been better. So, let's try this again.

I have written a fairly lengthy blog post summarizing this issue, why
it's important, and two paths that can get us through this.

TL;DR: This blog post argues that the extension of blank node
identifiers in JSON-LD and RDF for the purposes of identifying
predicates and naming graphs is important. It is important because it
simplifies the usage of both technologies for developers. The post also
provides a less-optimal solution if the RDF Working Group does not allow
blank node identifiers for predicates and graph names in RDF 1.1.


Andy, Steve, Pat, Peter, did I miss anything?

-- manu

Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Aaron Swartz, PaySwarm, and Academic Journals
Received on Sunday, 24 February 2013 02:48:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:36 UTC