- From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
- Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 18:52:27 +0200
- To: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Richard, You were opposed to the bnode sharing resolution, so I address this to you. To me the most important case in favour of sharing bnodes is the one when you have a single big RDF graph and you want to slice it to make easier working with it. This essentially means that you interpret the dataset as a single RDF graph, the <name,graph> pairs are just for data management (what we could call UNION semantics). Take the following example: <dataAboutBob> { :bob :worksIn _:rdfwg; ...more... } <dataAboutRDFWG> { _:rdfwg rdfs:label "RDF WG"@en . ...more... } it is essential that the bnode identifier _:rdfwg is used for the same bnode, otherwise you cannot conclude any connection between Bob and that existing stuff labelled "RDF WG". Do you want to interpret this as: ∃x Graph(<dataAboutBob>, Triple(:bob, :workIn, x)) ∧ ∃x Graph(<dataAboutRDFWG>, Triple(x, rdfs:label, "RDF WG"@en")) or: ∃x( Graph(<dataAboutBob>, Triple(:bob, :workIn, x)) ∧ Graph(<dataAboutRDFWG>, Triple(x, rdfs:label, "RDF WG"@en")) ) I think the second option is important too. Don't you think this case matters? How would you handle this if bnodes cannot be shared? It's possible to use skolemisation, but what if you want to share the dataset with other people, writing it down in Trig? Skolem IRIs are not supposed to be exposed outside the application, right? Perhaps there could be an indicator that bnodes are shared across graphs? @bnode-id-scope graph|dataset Best -- Antoine Zimmermann ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne 158 cours Fauriel 42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2 France Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03 Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66 http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
Received on Wednesday, 5 September 2012 16:53:01 UTC