- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 14:48:05 +0100
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- CC: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, public-rdf-comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
David Booth wrote: > 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"? _:b1 isn't a name, it's an artefact of the serialization, just as [] isn't a name, and the <>'s aren't part of the IRI.
Received on Thursday, 19 July 2012 13:48:51 UTC