Re: [call for comments] voiD 1.0

On 2/1/09 3:36 PM, Sergio Fernández wrote:
> After a short discussion with Michael by IRC about the issue he pointed
> with my usage of void:target property, we got some conclusions.
> Basically while voID is not extended, many dataset don't have a proper
> URI. So there are two ways to refer them: URI vs Blank Node, a IFP
> property (in this case foaf:homepage) does the magic in both cases. I
> know that many people hate blank nodes, and I would like not to need to
> use here, but in this case I prefer to use it and wait until the dataset
> publish a proper URI.
> IMO this is not just interesting for voID, but the scope of this
> discussion is bigger for the whole Semantic Web in general: do we want
> to create this (artificial) URIs? What's your opinion?
> Cheers,
> [1]
> [2]

Nothing wrong with IFPs, at the end of the day they are going to be the 
key to bootstrapping the "Linked Data Web".

If you look across Twitter ,, and all the other Web 2.0 data 
spaces, you will notice that IFPs reign at User App. Level. Even better, 
if we are trying to evolve the Web into a DBMS we have to be consistent 
with how DBMS engines actually work: all DBMS engines have IFPs (Primary 
Keys) and URIs (RowIDs). What makes the Web different is the fact that 
the RowIDs (URIs) aren't locked at the application, operating system, or 
network level :-)

VoiD is bringing important matters to the fore (e.g. describing data 
containers and their relationships)  that ultimately enable 
juxtaposition of traditional DBMS and  "Web  DBMS" as the basis for 
really understanding what the "Linked Data Web" is really about.



Kingsley Idehen       Weblog:
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software     Web:

Received on Sunday, 1 February 2009 23:03:17 UTC