- From: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 17:18:24 +0000
- To: Michael F Uschold <uschold@gmail.com>
- CC: "<semantic-web@w3.org>" <semantic-web@w3.org>
I must admit I gagged a bit when I saw "bnode". But the picture is so good, it seemed churlish to comment :-) My compliments for the complement. It wasn't just the "b" that caused me a problem - it was also the "node". Why do we think that people who are using this have to have the concept of a node? In fact, what is the meaning (semantics?) of labelling it a "bnode" - it implies by label that there is not a resolvable URI for it. Is that a requirement of GR? That is, am I allowed to use a resolvable URI for it? Perhaps the "Company" node is an "anonymous node" - who knows? Would it break everything to label it "Cost", for example? On the other hand, I think if it has to be a bnode in the underlying RDF, then there should be no label on it at all. Best Hugh On 18 May 2011, at 17:47, Michael F Uschold wrote: > What is a bnode really? It has no name, it is thus sort of an implicit node. Whatever name we use for it should be suggestive of the meaning, if it is going to widely used. Even for geeks seeing it for the first time, a meaningful name is easier and faster to learn from and work with. > > "bnode" suggests nothying of the meaning. > "anonymous node" is a bit more helpful. > "unnamed node" is a bit shorter, faster to grok > "implicit node" also captures something of what it means. > > Anything but "bnode" :-)) > > Michael > > On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Richard Levenberg <richard@connectsolutions.com> wrote: > They used to be termed anonymous nodes > > r > > On May 17, 2011, at 8:52 PM, Michael F Uschold wrote: > >> I have one concern: the term "bnode" may be hard to understand. Is there another term that might be a bit more meaningful to the average potential user? Or perhaps we assume most users will be geeks? >> >> Michael >> >> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 11:56 PM, Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote: >> Dear all: >> >> I tried to visualize the minimal RDF pattern for using GoodRelations in a way compatible with both Google and the Semantic Web at large. >> Attached, please find the respective illustration. >> >> It is meant as a complement to the complete GoodRelations UML diagram. >> >> Best wishes >> >> Martin > > > > > -- > Michael Uschold, PhD > Senior Ontology Consultant, Semantic Arts > LinkedIn: http://tr.im/limfu > Skype, Twitter: UscholdM > -- Hugh Glaser, Intelligence, Agents, Multimedia School of Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ Work: +44 23 8059 3670, Fax: +44 23 8059 3045 Mobile: +44 75 9533 4155 , Home: +44 23 8061 5652 http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~hg/
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2011 17:19:22 UTC