- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:39:45 -0400
- To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Cc: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>, public-rdf-comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 07:13 -0400, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: > * Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> [2012-07-18 22:24+0100] > > David Booth wrote: > > >On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 14:02 -0400, David Booth wrote: > > >>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". > > > > > >Andy explained off list that this was worded this way to avoid implying > > >that a bnode implies a unique, identifiable individual, since a bnode is > > >like an existential variable. My concern was that it should be clear > > >that when someone writes (in the same graph): > > > > > > _:b1 a :Dog . > > > _:b1 :name "Rex" . > > > > > >both statements (when applied) refer to the *same* (unspecified) dog, > > >which has (for the purposes of this graph) been called _:b1, though > > >there may be more than one dog that satisfies these statements. So I > > >guess the wording here is tricky, and I'm unsure of how to make it > > >clearer. > > > > > >How about "blank nodes do not indicate unique, identifiable resources"? > > >Would that be better? I'm okay with leaving it as is if you think not. > > > > "blank nodes indicate the existence of a thing, without providing a > > name for that thing." > > +1 > > doesn't get involved in assumptions of uniqueness which exist at the > graph-level (e.g. SPARQL) but not in RDF-Entailment or OWL. The only problem is that that phrasing says that the blank node does not have a name, when _:b1 obviously *is* a name, it just isn't a *stable* name. Maybe say ". . . without providing a *stable* name for that thing"? -- David Booth, Ph.D. http://dbooth.org/ Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of his employer.
Received on Thursday, 19 July 2012 13:40:17 UTC