W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > March 2011

Re: a blank node issue

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 19:40:59 +0000
Message-ID: <4D6E9D4B.5040706@webr3.org>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
CC: Reto Bachmann-Gmür <reto.bachmann@trialox.org>, Jir(í Procházka <ojirio@gmail.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, William Waites <ww@styx.org>, Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com>, semantic-web@w3.org
Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> Reto,
> 
> On 2 Mar 2011, at 18:50, Reto Bachmann-Gmür wrote:
>>> Is there any practical difference between bnodes and normal nodes, 
>>> except the scope (and necessity) of their name? 
>> Yes, a graph with bnodes can potentially be simplified: the same meaning may be expressed with a more lean graph, i.e. with less nodes and triples. If all your nodes are uris you cannot do simplifications with rdf entaillment. 
> 
> Reality check please!
> 
> When was the last time you saw such a non-lean RDF graph in the wild, outside of examples and test cases? Can you name a production system that routinely performs the simplification you talk about, with user benefit?
> 
> The question was about practice. You describe a thought experiment. I think it's a good example of a complication in RDF that was added for sound theoretical reasons, but has failed to deliver any value whatsoever in practice.

is the message here "blank nodes are useless, get rid of them / don't 
use them" ?
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2011 19:42:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:48:24 UTC