- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 11:25:47 -0800
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- CC: W3C RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, JSON-LD CG <public-linked-json@w3.org>
This blog post prominently includes blank nodes for predicates, which I don't think was discussed on the call last week. peter On 02/23/2013 06:48 PM, Manu Sporny 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 >
Received on Sunday, 24 February 2013 19:26:18 UTC