- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 13:33:53 -0400
- To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- CC: public-linked-json@w3.org, public-lod@w3.org
On 7/28/11 1:21 PM, Danny Ayers wrote: > [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... > > Cheers, > Danny. > > [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 > > Danny, To save time, I'll just refer to Richard's post re. Blank Nodes [1]. We do want a WWW based Global Data Space that has a high amnesia quotient. Remember, your G+ response to my post [1] about TimBL and Ted Nelson being separated by a common desire (expressed in their visions) for a Global Linked Data space driven by Hyperlinks? You couldn't find a Reference to one of your old comment about the artificial dichotomy of their visions etc.. The WWW has a shortening effect on "attention" while upping the ante on "memory" and "recall". Therein lies the conundrum :-) Links: 1. http://richard.cyganiak.de/blog/2011/03/blank-nodes-considered-harmful/ -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President& CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Received on Thursday, 28 July 2011 17:34:29 UTC