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

On 2011-03-26, at 03:44, David Booth wrote:

> 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. 

That's one take. I would say that the use of bNodes in linked data indicates that sometimes you want to mint identifiers that aren't "cool URIs". Pragmatically, some pieces of information are transitory.

> 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.  

You always have the option to just use an HTTP URI.

- Steve

Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD

Received on Saturday, 26 March 2011 09:19:14 UTC