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

On 7/23/14 2:18 PM, David Booth wrote:
> On 07/23/2014 06:46 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Well, okay, but that seems like a somewhat pedantic distinction. It
> isn't very helpful to tell someone: "There really *is* a URI for
> this thingy that I'm talking about, but I'm not telling you what it is".
>
> But I get your point that the phrasing I used was a little over stated.
> Maybe something like this would be better: ". . . the use of blank
> nodes clearly seems **at odds with** the web architectural good practice
> that anything of importance should be given a URI . . .", and then
> explaining why: because it makes it harder for others to refer to that 
> thing.  Do you think a phrasing like that would be better, or do you 
> still think it would misrepresent the AWWW's intent somehow?  If so, how?
>
> David 

I would like to believe that AWWW caters to the notion of existence via 
an existential quantifier e.g., blank node (natural language pronoun).

In regards to AWWW best practices, in the RDF usage scenarios, 
everything of relevance does end up being denoted, even when its simply 
a case of existence via a blank node :-)

-- 
Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this