W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Blank Node Identifiers and RDF Dataset Normalization

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 17:41:36 +0100
Cc: W3C RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, JSON-LD CG <public-linked-json@w3.org>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Message-Id: <B52F794C-6ABD-4166-8CEF-968E722A8DB2@w3.org>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
(Richard, there is an explicit question to you, hence your name in the cc...)


I just note that your blog goes beyond what we discussed last time. The text of the blog suggests that you want to reopen *again* the predicate-not-being-bnode issues as well, not only the blank-node-as-graph-name. I thought that issue was already discussed before, and I am not amused getting it again on the agenda.

I am sorry if I take an administrative standpoint here, but that is my job: I note that these issues have been the focus of the WG for several weeks now, taking away people's energy and available time from other issues this WG has. We have already missed the first deadlines in the *new* timetable[1]: on the 1st of March, we should have a LC document for Concepts, RDF/XML, RDF Schema, JSON-LD Syntax, and JSON-LD API. If we go on reopening closed issues, we are doomed and there will be no RDF 1.1 at all. You are a bit dismissive on that argument in your blog, but I think it is much more serious; if this group fails to properly finish its job, the effects on the deployment of RDF is way more harmful than the "...make many RDF-based applications more complex in the long run, resulting in a great deal more work than just allowing blank nodes for predicates and graph names." (Not that I agree with your characterization, actually, but that is another matter.)

Hence my standpoint of _not_ reopening issues; we should be, mentally, in last call! It seems that you have an approach that works for your problem, even if you do not like it. Instead of trying to find a consensus that I do not see coming, in my view we should take the suboptimal solution and move on. Let us concentrate on properly finish what we have a consensus on; the RDF 1.1 design time is, in my view, over.

B.t.w., I would not mind documenting the more 'liberal' Skolemization as a good practice in the concepts documents, alongside the current Skolemization section, rather than confining it to JSON-LD. The Skolemization section is not normative, I do not think it harms to have that there. I leave that to Richard, though...


[1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Rdf-extension.html

On Feb 24, 2013, at 03:48 , Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:

> 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/

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Sunday, 24 February 2013 16:42:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:25 UTC