W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > July 2011

Defining "LD" (was Re: Branding?)

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 19:21:44 +0200
Message-ID: <CAM=Pv=SUvFY23fO=_7dBg93BG3JB1diQw92pRGRuGXpGrxUuXw@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-linked-json@w3.org
Cc: public-lod@w3.org
[cc'ing public-lod@w3.org, this all seems to be drifting a little
beyond JSON scope - see [1], [2], [3] ]

"LD" meaning "Labeled and Directed" for JSON-LD works for me too.

But I don't see a problem with defining linked data as being all-URIs
(fully grounded, no bnodes or literals) just for spec purposes, it
does at least emphasize the key feature (although I'm still a fan of
bnodes :)

Is a graph solely comprised of bnodes linked data? Presumably not.

Is the result of merging an all-URI graph with an all-bnode graph
linked data? In general parlance and practice yes, but it doesn't
actually contain any more information than the first subgraph.

So what happens with a graph which contains something like:

<#uriA> :p1 _:x .
_:x :p2 <#uriB> .


It's tricky, the individual triples don't entirely fit with the 4
principles, together they kind-of do. But I certainly don't think we
need to leap to skolemization to make sense of this.

If the graph's on the Web as it should be, then it'll be named with a
URI, so we could get a "quasi-entailment" along the lines of:

<#graph> :contains <#uriA> .
<#graph> :contains <#uriB> .

or if you prefer to stay within the graph, something like:

<#uriA> :p1 _:x .
_:x :p2 <#uriB> .
<#uriA> rdfs:seeAlso <#uriB> .

Dunno, this might all just be angels on a pinhead stuff...


[1] http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-linked-json
[3] https://plus.google.com/102122664946994504971/posts/15eHTC3FA4A

Received on Thursday, 28 July 2011 17:22:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:21:14 UTC