RE: GoodRelations Light

Leave the blank-node blank.

If you need precedent, see Figure 6 of the RDF primer.

 Aidan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: semantic-web-request@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Alan Ruttenberg
> Sent: 18 May 2011 18:40
> To: Michael F Uschold
> Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
> Subject: Re: GoodRelations Light
> 
> The "node" language confuses more than it helps. Bnodes represent
> things that we haven't given a name. For example when my wife was
> pregnant, there was a growing embryo that we didn't name for a while.
> A bnode might be used to represent that growing to-be child.
> 
> Or I know that everyone (so far) has a biological mom. I might use a
> bnode to represent the mom of a friend whose name I don't know.
> 
> Perhaps a good common word to use would be "something", or "something
> node" if you are fond of "node" language.
> 
> -Alan
> 
> On Wednesday, May 18, 2011, Michael F Uschold <uschold@gmail.com> 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
> >

Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2011 17:50:48 UTC