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

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

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 09:31:17 +0000
Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, semantic-web@w3.org
Message-Id: <5F753623-32E4-4C68-9AF9-6F6A5DDAB136@garlik.com>
To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
On 2011-03-26, at 09:09, Steve Harris wrote:
> I get where you're coming from, but I suspect that not being able to dereference is a good thing in some cases.
> If it's a dereferencable URI then you win a load of moral(?) obligations to make them stable and persistent, which is some of the things you're might be trying to get away from when using bNodes.
> I like the UUID prefix, gets round a lot of practical issues.
> <bnode:3dff1ee0-783a-42f4-8d67-4381dd4dd83e:123456> can't be resolved, but you can use it in, for e.g.
> http://sparql.example.com/data?graph=bnode%3A3dff1ee0-783a-42f4-8d67-4381dd4dd83e%3A123456
> Ignoring for a moment the raft of exciting scope issues that raises :)

A less crazy example is maybe:


It's an exercise for the user to map UUIDs to endpoints, but that feels more practical than a global registry of every skolemised bNode.

- Steve

Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203  http://www.garlik.com/
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 09:31:51 UTC

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