Re: implied datasets

>
> Here's why. In library world, perhaps more than elsewhere, it is
> common to do things like this,
>
> <http://example.org/issn/1234-5678> a bibo:Jornal;
>    blah blah blah some descriptions;
>    owl:sameAs <urn:issn:1234-5678>.
>
> This is because there are standard identifiers for lots of things that
> are found in libraries and they even have a urn namespace. So it is a
> lot easier when publishing this data than to go out and use something
> like silk to try to find links. They're already implied by the
> identifiers we have in hand.
>

It seems to me that this is another demonstration of confusion that wouldn't
happen if we all understood RDF IDs to be pure identifiers that belong to
the graph representation of a dataset and nothing else. ISSN numbers are not
graph-node IDs, they are real-world conceptual identifiers like social
security numbers or SKUs or country codes. Many different data-structure
might reference them in very different ways, so it should be fairly clear
that they cannot uniquely identify anything but themselves, and thus they
should themselves be represented in RDF as nodes. So the above should be
more like:

ex:1 a ex:Journal;
  rdfs:label "International Digest of Periodicity";
  ex:issn ex:2;
  ex:blah ex:3.

ex:2 a ex:ISSN;
  rdfs:label "1234-5678";
  ex:journal ex:1.

glenn