- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 21:37:20 +0200
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: Ross Singer <rxs@talisplatform.com>, public-lld@w3.org
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote: > I think the complexity of the SPARQL queries would be the same. What makes > the SPARQL query complex (in terms of graph patterns) is the properties you > use in the graph patterns (thus, the number of edges)---not whether the > nodes are blank nodes or "fully fledged" resources. Yep. The cost of bnodes is that it makes it quite a bit harder to subsequently super-impose extra information on the graph. After the RDFCore and OWL clarifications to RDF (eg. that the same real world thing could have multiple URIs and graph nodes) it became much more common to casually assign ad-hoc URIs where formerly we'd have had bnodes. This idiom makes adding extra triples later much easier. Either way I think those decisions are up to deployers, publishers, annotators rather than vocab designers... we won't get much centralised control over when bnodes are used or not used. cheers, Dan
Received on Thursday, 30 September 2010 19:37:59 UTC