>>>>> Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net> writes: >>>>> On 12/18/2012 10:23 AM, Ivan Shmakov wrote: […] >> This way, one may easily end up with hundreds of URI's, each naming >> one and the only person which was unfortunate enough to sit next to >> our Lee. >> … And don't forget about all the owl:sameAs arcs necessary to manage >> this crowd! > OK, sure. Why is having hundreds of URIs for this person any worse > than having hundreds of distinct blank nodes? First of all, I'd assume that a typical RDF store implementation will assign temporary identifiers (most likely integers) to /all/ the nodes — both blank and named. This way, one could conserve space by /not/ storing permanent identifiers (URI's) in addition to the temporary ones. But perhaps even more compelling reason to use blank nodes is that instead of introducing owl:sameAs arcs, one may just replace two (or more) distinct blank nodes, — found to be representing the same entity, — with a sole node possessing the union of the properties of such blank nodes. (Provided we check for, and resolve, any semantic conflicts there are, that is.) -- FSF associate member #7257Received on Tuesday, 18 December 2012 16:06:44 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:31 UTC