- From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 15:52:25 +0200
- To: public-rdf-comments@w3.org
I'm afraid I'll repeat myself but a blank node does *not* have a name, it is blank. _:b1 is an artifact of the serialisation syntax you used. It does not exist in the RDF graph. Basically, you just wrote this: [] a :Dog; :name "Rex" . or that: <rdf:Description> <rdf:type rdf:resource="Dog"/> <name>Rex</name> </rdf:Description> where is the name of the bnode? AZ Le 19/07/2012 15:39, David Booth a écrit : > 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"? > > -- 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 66 03 Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66 http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
Received on Thursday, 19 July 2012 13:52:49 UTC