Re: Blank Node Identifiers and RDF Dataset Normalization

On 2/27/13 1:23 PM, Manu Sporny wrote:
> On 02/27/2013 11:36 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> A suggestion:
>>
>> Manu: JSON-LD should make a note about the use of bnodes to denote
>> graphs. That note could then hone into its special use case
>> scenarios e.g., where there's high velocity data with little mass.
>>
>> Steve: As already acknowledged above, you are correct about the
>> optimization cost to existing RDF stores and DBMS engines (it will
>> hit Virtuoso too) . Thus, when our engines encounter such data, we
>> could simply  just remap the IRIs as part of our data ingestion
>> (insert | import) routines. That's what we'll end up doing.
>>
>> Naturally, this means tweaking existing code re. data import,
>> ingestion, and creation etc.. Personally, I believe we have the
>> ability to close out this matter without holding up the various
>> workgroups i.e., RDF 1.1 stays as is. JSON-LD has a fleshed out
>> version of the note I suggested to Manu etc..
>>
>> Manu/Steve:
>>
>> What do you think?
> Sounds good and I agree. This is more-or-less what we fleshed out
> yesterday on the JSON-LD call:
>
> http://json-ld.org/minutes/2013-02-26/#topic-3
>
> -- manu
>

"PROPOSAL: JSON-LD will continue to support blank node identifiers for 
properties and graph names. When converting data to RDF 1.1, the 
specification will not introduce any special checks to handle these 
specific cases. It is up to the implementations to figure out how to 
convert this data to something conformant to RDF 1.1."

+10000 ...

Everyone is kept happy this way :-)

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen