- From: Laura Morales <lauretas@mail.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 14:04:48 +0100
- To: "Christopher Gutteridge" <totl@soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: "Stian Soiland-Reyes" <soiland-reyes@manchester.ac.uk>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
Because as of today 19th November 2018 the standards do not allow for blank-node properties. I'm not allowed to use example:Alice _:foobar example:Bob and RDF libraries will fail to parse these triples and throw errors instead. Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 at 1:59 PM From: "Christopher Gutteridge" <totl@soton.ac.uk> To: "Laura Morales" <lauretas@mail.com>, "Stian Soiland-Reyes" <soiland-reyes@manchester.ac.uk> Cc: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org> Subject: Re: "undefined" URI scheme It really sounds like the definition of blank nodes, which have their issues. Why not just use _: rather than invent a new thing that means the same? On 19/11/2018 12:48, Laura Morales wrote: > > - I think "blank properties" would be useful for practical purposes, for example _:find-this-book-at, and for me they would be equivalent to <undefined:>. But rewriting the standard to include blank properties would be a much harder task than simply accepting a <undefined:> URI > -- Christopher Gutteridge <totl@soton.ac.uk> You should read our team blog at http://blog.soton.ac.uk/webteam/
Received on Monday, 19 November 2018 13:05:16 UTC