Thank you for the filtering.. > On 13 Dec 2012, at 14:41, Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net> wrote: > >> On 12/13/2012 2:00 AM, Pat Hayes wrote: >>> Another example: a picture of some celebrity standing next to a horse. I have a URI for the celebrity, but I don't have and don't need one for the horse: and if I were to invent one for each horse, then I could no longer query for retrieval of a picture of that person with "a horse", but would have to remember the URi for each of the bloody horses. But nobody gives a damn about the particular horse. >> >> Could you explain this more? Because I'm picturing just doing: >> >> SELECT ?photo { >> ?photo a :Photograph ; >> :depicts :ThePerson ; >> :depicts [ a :Horse ] ; >> . >> } >> >> ...which works fine whether the horse is represented with a blank node or a URI. >> >> Lee Yes! That's right. Compelling use cases for blank nodes are covered by SPARQL. RDF triples *without blank nodes* are adequate and understandable by everyone. Let SPARQL do the work. The List/Collection use case is covered by Turtle where, like in any other language, lists are primitive e.g. ( uri1 uri2 uri3 ). Let the primitives be the canonical form and let the bnode encoding be a historical curiosity. It was a dubious decision to encode lists in the first place. This leads to a half page specification for Well-Behaved RDF with little or no ambiguity. RossReceived on Friday, 14 December 2012 17:43:36 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:31 UTC