Re: Indicating Skolem Nodes (was Re: AW: {Disarmed} Re: blank nodes (once again))

On Fri, 2011-03-25 at 23:04 -0400, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-03-25 at 13:23 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
> > BTW, I think that skolem URIs should NOT be dereferencable, as a
> matter of design. If you want to put a 'real' URI name in there, you
> always have that option: but then (for example) changing it will make
> a non-equivalent graph (as it should). 

I am stunned that folks are even discussing new URI schemes for this,
when linked data has clearly -- once again -- demonstrated the benefits
of *dereferenceable* URIs. 

Please, at *least* make it dereferenceable to *some* kind of useful
information.  In the very least, it could be information about how
bnodes are skolomized.  Nobody is required to dereference a URI.  But it
is helpful to have the *option* of deferencing an identifier to learn
more about it.  


-- 
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.

Received on Saturday, 26 March 2011 03:45:15 UTC