W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > March 2020

Re: blank predicates

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2020 18:07:02 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKaEYhLdXXRoYf7i5MZ6mxX79StUG5eJKVF4i684y-MYn=VcwA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Patrick J Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 at 08:43, Patrick J Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:

> Generalized RDF allows blank nodes in relation position, so does N3 and
> also ISO Common Logic (all with the same semantics). The various
> suggestions to use a ’crap’ URI such as lio:relation can be seen as
> skolemizations of these bnodes in predicate position. There are independent
> reasons for using generalized RDF syntax in any case, since reasoning is
> incomplete without it. And it is pretty trivial to implement: it amounts to
> not performing some syntax checks that RDF requires.
>

Thanks Pat, so we could perhaps say 'crap URIs DO change' :P

So I like turtle and N3 alot.  I'd like to use this feature of N3, but am
probably going to serialize in turtle in the short term

This is exactly the information I wanted

If I have to use a 'crap' URI in turtle, I would want it to say "this is a
place holder for the equivalent N3 construct".  Could we make that in the
N3 community group perhaps?

I suppose nothing like that exists right now.  Would it maybe be a good
idea to collect the different suggestions and see which has mind share at
the moment?  Perhaps a straw poll.

Regarding reification, that's a nice idea.  I worry about (perhaps
perceived) added compleity in serialization and querying.

Seems a paradoxical problem.  There are too many ways to name the nameless
thing! :)


>
> Pat Hayes
>
> > On Mar 28, 2020, at 3:52 AM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I am working on a information mapping system (aka mind maps)
> >
> > And I want to have two nodes related to each other
> >
> > #Alice R #Bob
> >
> > In the general sense, the type of relationship (predicate) R is not
> really known at the time of creation.  My software currently does not allow
> the labeling of edges is the reason (but hopefully in future it will)
> >
> > I need a way to relate Alice to Bob but I dont have a URI for a
> predicate.
> >
> > Is there something that can operate as a "blank predicate"?
> >
> > Or some existing relations that simply says that two entities or linked
> / related, without yet knowing how they are related?
>
>
Received on Sunday, 29 March 2020 16:07:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 29 March 2020 16:07:31 UTC