- From: Bill de hÓra <bill.dehora@propylon.com>
- Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 14:50:49 +0100
- To: Geoff Chappell <geoff@sover.net>
- CC: 'Joshua Allen' <joshuaa@microsoft.com>, semantic-web@w3.org, 'Danny Ayers' <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Geoff Chappell wrote: > Isn’t that problem? I suppose you could say that the system would be > selective about when it gives the bnode's global vs. local name - e.g. using > the local name for all client access except replication clients. But that's > essentially requiring that all systems that want to participate in > replication must modify their inner workings and handling of bnodes -- talk > about being DOA in terms of deployment. > > I suspect it's better to just bite the bullet and deal with identification > of bnodes by description. There is always a description in a particular > graph that is sufficient to identify a bnode in that graph (if there are > multiple subgraphs that match the description then they're redundant info > anway and can be merged). Maybe an approach like this would work: "Reference by Description" as the TAP folks call it: http://tap.stanford.edu/tap/rbd.html Not unrelated. Tim Bray recently described a feature of the Atom format (it makes all entries expose IDs). This is very useful, but I don't think the problem Tim is describing, seeing the same entry twice, is a bug: http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2005/04/03/Atom-Now cheers Bill
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2005 13:50:52 UTC