Re: Using bnode identifiers for predicates, graph names

On 29/01/13 17:09, Manu Sporny wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I realize that this may open a can of worms, but we need a fairly
> definitive answer from the RDF WG on JSON-LD and using bnode
> identifiers for predicates and graph names.
>
> One of the few remaining areas where JSON-LD currently deviates from
> RDF is by allowing, but frowning upon, the use of blank node
> identifiers as graph names and predicates. In both cases, blank node
> identifiers are scoped to the document.
>
> It is our understanding that blank node identifiers weren't allowed
> for predicates because RDF/XML couldn't express that sort of markup.

And all the published versions of Turtle, N-triples etc do not support 
it.  A lot of existing code will depend on that.

> We were wondering if blank node identifiers for graphs had been
> discussed in detail.
>
> We aren't interested in debating whether this is a good idea or not
> as that has a very high perma-thread potential. :)
>
> We want to know if there is a known problem that cannot be worked
> around by allowing bnode identifiers to have document scope, allowing
> them to be used for predicates and graph names.
>
> Thoughts?

Specifically on graph names -- document scoped bnodes identifers is a 
different issue and a good thing.

Yes - discussed at length in DAWG/SPARQL-1.0

The consensus reached was for IRIs only.  And in this WG has consensus 
on IRIs in datasets.  Not bnodes, not literals.

There is no practical experience of bnodes for graph names.  The 
semantic implications are "unclear".  I do not want to reopen that debate.

Known problem : does not work with other RDF systems.

	Andy

Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2013 20:24:50 UTC