- From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 11:23:13 +0100
- To: martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
- Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, Renato Iannella <renato@nicta.com.au>, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>, Peter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com>, Brian Suda <brian.suda@gmail.com>, www-archive@w3.org, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 10:36 +0200, Martin Hepp (UniBW) wrote: > I don't know whether I am in the Linked Data scene ;-), but I am > convinced that bNodes can be useful. As far as I'm concerned a bNode is just a resource that nobody's bothered to give a URI... yet. I don't think that the vCard vocab should be *insisting* that these are bNodes rather than URIs. e.g. the following should be essentially the same as far as vCard vocab consumers are concerned: <#me> v:tel [ a v:Home ; rdf:value "123456789" ] . and: <#me> v:tel <#homePhone> . <#homePhone> a v:Home ; rdf:value "123456789" . Indeed, it annoys me that [...] in SPARQL doesn't match nodes which have URIs. It's unintuitive. I'm CCing public-rdf-dawg-comments. -- Toby A Inkster <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Thursday, 17 September 2009 10:24:03 UTC