- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 21:17:43 +0200
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, David Wood <dpw@talis.com>, "public-rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 16 April 2011 16:58, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote: > On 16 Apr 2011, at 15:46, Steve Harris wrote: >> My suspicion is that the only way forward would be some text along the lines of: [with apologies for any abuse of terminology] >> >> Systems wishing to skolemise bNodes, and expose those skolem constants to external systems (e.g. in query results) SHOULD mint fresh a "fresh" (globally unique) URI for each bNode. >> >> All systems performing skolemisation SHOULD do so in a way that they can recognise the constants once skolemised, and map back to the source bNodes where possible. >> >> Systems which want their skolem constants to be identifiable by other systems SHOULD use the .well-known URI prefix. Yes, this is more or less the condition/qualifier I was hoping we'd find during the meeting. So this heads in an OK direction from my point of view. cheers, Dan > A cautious +1 to the above from me. > > I think that the documents should have a section that has some recommendations about when to use and when to avoid blank nodes, along the lines of [1] and [2]. Some text on skolemization could go into that section. > > Best, > Richard > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2011Mar/0068.html > [2] http://richard.cyganiak.de/blog/2011/03/blank-nodes-considered-harmful/
Received on Saturday, 16 April 2011 19:18:10 UTC