W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > March 2011

Re: A modest proposal concerning blank nodes.

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 00:40:46 +0000
Message-ID: <4D6EE38E.1090409@webr3.org>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
CC: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Pat Hayes wrote:
> On Mar 2, 2011, at 5:46 PM, Nathan wrote:
> 
>> Nathan wrote:
>>> mini proposal 2..
>>> only one simple question, why not scope blank node identifiers to named g-boxes where a name is present, and where not as a syntax of the serialization (well, to the g-text), this allows people to migrate to blank nodes being persistent identifiers without breaking bc, and keeps that existential quantification in RDF.
>> s/persistent identifiers/persistent local identifiers/
>> as in, scoped inside a g-box, as a property of a g-box where one exists, and where not as a property of a g-text (which is just an anonymous g-box when you abstract enough).
> 
> Yes. :-)
> See my reply to Richard.

cool - just to confirm in a sub thread, this means that if a g-box with 
a name exists (say just a normal ir on the web, or a FROM <graph> in 
sparql) then two subsequent data retrievals would result in _:b1 being 
_:b1 in both.

if however it was a quoted graph, or some anonymous chunk of RDF, then 
the blank node identifier would not be maintained by default.

although, in the second case, and by way of niftyness, if it's scoped to 
the g-box, then to parse or serialize a graph you have to "put it in a 
box" so the names could be maintained (? perhaps)

the question then, when you take two g-boxes with names, and smash the 
triples together, how do you prevent bnode-identifier conflicts? do the 
names get replaced, or does this mean bnode-identifiers become a pair
   ( <g-box-name> , _:b1 ) for named g-boxes
   ( , _:b1 ) for anonymous g-texts

or?
Received on Thursday, 3 March 2011 00:42:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:03 UTC