W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > July 2014

Re: Converting RDF to JSON-LD : shared lists between graphs

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 11:46:31 +0100
Message-ID: <CAK-qy=6CiaWD+jsT=93WRsqvcQnfOTK_9vLBonxNp9ucU0W3ww@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Cc: Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>, public-rdf-comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
On 22 July 2014 19:11, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
>
> On 07/22/2014 01:34 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>>
>> On 22 July 2014 17:30, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> This does not directly address your question, but . . .
>>>
>>> Don't do that!  ;)   Seriously, I'm sure you have your reasons for
>>> wanting
>>> to do that, but it violates what I would call "Well Behaved RDF":
>>> http://dbooth.org/2013/well-behaved-rdf/Booth-well-behaved-rdf.pdf
>>
>>
>> Your PDF says "It is worth pointing out that these difficulties were
>> foreseen (at least in principle) by the authors of the W3C
>> Architecture of the World Wide Web (AWWW),[12] as the use of blank
>> nodes clearly violates the web architectural good practice that
>> anything of importance should be given a URI. As the AWWW states: “A
>> resource should have an associated URI if another party might
>> reasonably want to . . . make or refute assertions about it . . . .” "
>>
>> I suggest this is a mistaken reading of the holy text.
>
> How so?  It seems to me that there is an inherent tension between being nice
> to RDF consumers (by using URIs for things that other might want to refer
> to, as AWWW recommends) and author convenience, which leads to bnode use.

Yes, that's a real tension, although bnodes are just one aspect. My
point was to question the "clearly" in  "the use of blank nodes
clearly violates the web architectural good practice that anything of
importance should be given a URI". Using bnodes is consistent with the
things the bnodes represent having URIs, so nothing is violated. The
reason btw we renamed them "bnodes" instead of the earlier (1997-2000
e.g. http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-identity-anon-resources)
phrase "anonymous nodes" was this point: the things are not anonymous
/ nameless. Only particular descriptions of them.

>> Even if we (by some vast and mystically-tinged effort) give URIs to
>> all entities known to humanity, ...  that's not the same thing as
>> always having-to, wanting-to or being-able-to provide a well-known URI
>> whenever those entities are mentioned in an RDF description.
>
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>>
>> It is entirely reasonable to want to represent fragments of partial
>> information, even if the lack of shared URIs is inconvenient.
>> Reference-by-description is as old as human communication, is
>> intrinsic to it, and isn't going away anytime soon.
>
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>> Andy's use case seems entirely sensible to me.
>
>
> Sure it's sensible, but it leads to subtle complexity that I think is harmful to RDF adoption in the long run.

Sure, RDF would be easier to deploy if everyone knew everything already...

Dan
Received on Wednesday, 23 July 2014 10:47:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:42 UTC