- From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 12:05:27 -0400
- 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