- From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 08:51:40 +0200
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- CC: public-rdf-comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Le 18/07/2012 20:02, David Booth a écrit : > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#resources-and-statements > says: "blank nodes do not denote specific resources". I don't think > that is quite correct, since a blank node *does* denote a specific > resource. It just doesn't give that resource a name that is meaningful > outside the graph. I suggest rewording this as "blank nodes do not have > stable names that can be referenced outside of the graph". Blank nodes do not have names. They are blank. When you refer to name not meaningful outside the graph, you are referring to certain concrete syntaxes where bnodes are sometimes identifiable by a local name. Bnodes do not denote a specific resource indeed: :me foaf:knows [] . (I know someone) "someone" or [] does not denote a specific person. The formal semantics is also supporting this: an interpretation maps IRIs and literals to resources but does not map bnodes to anything. I can interpret the triple above as follows: :me is mapped to myself. foaf:knows is mapped to the acquaintance relationship. That's all I can interpret in this tiny RDF graph. However, in order to satisfy the triple, there must exist a resource that :me knows. My interpretation of the triple would be false if I did not know anybody. -- Antoine Zimmermann ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne 158 cours Fauriel 42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2 France Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 83 36 Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66 http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
Received on Thursday, 19 July 2012 06:52:15 UTC