Re: Blank Node Identifiers and RDF Dataset Normalization

On 24/02/13 19:52, Manu Sporny wrote:
> On 02/24/2013 05:54 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>>> http://manu.sporny.org/2013/rdf-identifiers/
>>
>> Do you agree or disagree that it is developer friendly to be able to
>>   read the document at URL <http://example/foo>, get the triples and
>> put those triples into a dataset as graph labelled
>> <http://example/foo>?
>
> I realize that you've asked questions similar to this one several times
> now without the two of us being able to get into the details. I tried to
> explain during the last telecon that this question is independent of the
> "allow blank node identifiers as graph labels" decision that I was
> asking for last week.
>
> It does have a bearing on the "blank node identifiers and IRIs, should
> denote the graph" comment I had made at some point, which is a parallel
> concern, but far less to me than you may think it is. I also tried to
> explain that the first decision can be made independently of the second.
> We can allow blank node identifiers for graph names without saying that
> they must denote the graph. The RDF 1.1 Concepts document can continue
> to not take a strong position either way.
>
> That said, let me try to answer your question more directly:
>
> I agree that it is developer friendly to be able to read a document from
> an URL and associate the triples generated with a graph labeled with the
> same URL /as long as/ the developer doesn't use that URL to refer to
> anything else. In that case, I view the URL as denoting the graph:
>
> <http://example.com/foo> a rdf:Graph .

I don't think it denotes a graph.

Graphs don't change over time; what you GET from a URL can.  gBox vs 
gSnap and all that.

I was trying to determine the requirements and also whether "bnode 
identifier" is the syntax or the internal id of the bnode; both usages 
seem to be used and they have different lifetimes.

I'm stuck now though ...

http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/rdf-graph-normalization/

Draft of 05 February 2013

-------------------
Issue 1

This algorithm is a work in progress, do not implement it. There is a 
newer, simpler to implement algorithm that has not yet been described 
here. The algorithm below is obsolete.
-------------------

 Andy

Received on Sunday, 24 February 2013 22:13:02 UTC