- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 21:48:03 -0500
- To: W3C RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
- CC: JSON-LD CG <public-linked-json@w3.org>
On 02/20/2013 01:04 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote: > I haven't followed all the discussion about dataset normalization, > and I don't know the algorithm, but toward the end of today's call, > it sounded like the best option may be something like Create A New > URI Scheme. > > tag:w3.org,2000:graph: Hey Sandro, thank you. This is very helpful and I've turned the suggestion into a proposal, more below. The discussion during last weeks RDF WG call on allowing blank node identifiers for graph names was a bit of a train wreck. I apologize for my part in not effectively communicating the situation and the purpose for the proposals. It became obvious toward the end of the conversation that we were all talking past each other and a different approach would have been better. So, let's try this again. I have written a fairly lengthy blog post summarizing this issue, why it's important, and two paths that can get us through this. TL;DR: This blog post argues that the extension of blank node identifiers in JSON-LD and RDF for the purposes of identifying predicates and naming graphs is important. It is important because it simplifies the usage of both technologies for developers. The post also provides a less-optimal solution if the RDF Working Group does not allow blank node identifiers for predicates and graph names in RDF 1.1. http://manu.sporny.org/2013/rdf-identifiers/ Andy, Steve, Pat, Peter, did I miss anything? -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny) Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: Aaron Swartz, PaySwarm, and Academic Journals http://manu.sporny.org/2013/payswarm-journals/
Received on Sunday, 24 February 2013 02:48:38 UTC