RE: vCard RDF merge....



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rdf-dawg-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-dawg-
> comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Toby Inkster
> Sent: 17 September 2009 11:23
> To: martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
> Cc: Dan Brickley; Harry Halpin; Renato Iannella; Norman Walsh; Peter Mika;
> Brian Suda; www-archive@w3.org; public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: vCard RDF merge....
> 
> 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.

Toby - what makes you say that?  

Blank nodes in a SPARQL query are variables and, as such, should match nodes in the graph being matched with URIs or literal or blank nodes in the data.

(Note for your query to match, query and data must have the same base URI for <#..> to match.)

 Andy

> 
> 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 11:30:17 UTC