- From: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@atomgraph.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 23:16:05 +0100
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-star@w3.org
But dereferencing is another thing, and it's a privilege as you say. But URI identification in itself should be a right, per RDF principles? You can argue blank nodes are not URI-addressable - but that is by choice; any blank node can be skolemized into a URI if necessary. But not so with << >> statements (or what are they called)? On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 11:10 PM Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 4 Feb 2020, 22:03 Martynas Jusevičius, <martynas@atomgraph.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I've read Kurt Cagle's post: >> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/state-graph-merger-property-graphs-semantic-kurt-cagle/ >> >> The reification looks neat. But it seems to me that Linked Data* would >> be broken. >> >> The idea with Linked Data is to follow the links. But <<city:_Seattle >> city:isConnectedTo city:_SanFranciso>> has no URI, so how should we >> address it on the web? > > > RDF has the same issues too. Decent stable public URIs are a privilege not a right, and can be checked for at higher levels... > >> >> Martynas >>
Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2020 22:16:18 UTC