W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > April 2009

Re: [foaf-dev] [foaf-protocols] FOAF sites offline during cleanup

From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 12:05:27 -0400
Message-ID: <49F5D7C7.10209@thefigtrees.net>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
CC: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, foaf-dev Friend of a <foaf-dev@lists.foaf-project.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
[trimmed to: and cc: list a bit]

Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> Dan Brickley wrote:
>>
>> What % of "linked data" is truly free of bnodes?
>>   
> Dan,
> 
> I would safely say re. LOD Cloud somewhere north of 80% :-) And thats 
> primary due to the content coming from PingTheSemanticWeb, otherwise I 
> would say 90% and higher. The "Linked Data" meme has always encouraged 
> URIs for everything.

This discussion is interesting to me. Kingsley's comment made me say 
"huh, does dbpedia really only use URIs?"

so I ran:

select count(distinct ?s) where { ?s ?p ?o . filter(isblank(?s)) }

at http://dbpedia.org/sparql and received a result of 1330.

(i trired to compare with URIs by querying with isuri or with no filter, 
but those queries timed out)

so there seem to be a few blank nodes scattered there, but not many. i 
wanted to get an idea of what these blank nodes are used for, so i did:

select distinct ?p where { ?s ?p ?o . filter(isblank(?s)) }

http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type
http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#unionOf
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#first
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#rest

...which made it somewhat clear that blank nodes are used in dbpedia for 
RDF lists and (?) anonymous classes.

Anyway.

Lee
Received on Monday, 27 April 2009 16:08:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:11 UTC