W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > December 2012

Re: Well Behaved RDF - Taming Blank Nodes, etc.

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:14:40 -0500
Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, semantic-web@w3.org
Message-Id: <9A8EB2EA-D4E0-4A5B-BC5A-8ADF624F7CA9@w3.org>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>

On Dec 13, 2012, at 12:42 , David Booth wrote:
>> The restriction of "no labels" is not just about "no cycles" - it's 
>> things that are not tree-like:
>> :x1 :p _:a .
>> :x2 :q _:a .
> Yes, excellent example.  I explained to Pat in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2012Dec/0040.html
> why I chose the "no labels" restriction instead, but I'm open to
> considering either.

I think it would still be better to explain these things in a syntax independent way. After all, I may want to use JSON-LD or RDFa...

Distilling the various mails and concentrating on bnodes only, what seems to be the pattern is 

- bnodes can appear in at most one triple as an object
- there can be no cycle in the graphs involving bnodes

Would that suffice as a more formal definition?


Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Thursday, 13 December 2012 20:15:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:31 UTC