Re: GoodRelations Light

Always thought it was called a "blank node" and "bnode" was just a cute
shortening :)
Anyway I just edited the introduction of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank_node along those lines.
Note that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bnode redirects to the above ...

Beyond vocabulary issues, seems to me that in OWL you can't express the
constraint that instances of a given class should be anonymous resources.

Bernard

2011/5/18 Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

> 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/
>
>
>
>


-- 
Bernard Vatant
Senior Consultant
Vocabulary & Data Integration
Tel:       +33 (0) 971 488 459
Mail:     bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
----------------------------------------------------
Mondeca
3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France
Web:    http://www.mondeca.com
Blog:    http://mondeca.wordpress.com
----------------------------------------------------