On 2012-12-18, at 16:34, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: > On 12/18/2012 11:06 AM, Ivan Shmakov wrote: >>>>>>> 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. > > As you seem to acknowledge, storage conservation doesn't seem like a particularly compelling reason here :-) There certainly are cases where it matters, we save a huge amount of money by using bNodes* instead of author-minted URIs. * However, having another mechanism where the author requests the store to create a URI (like when you use bNode syntax, but always use RDF 1.1 skolemisation on output) would work just as well, and be less confusing. - Steve -- Steve Harris Experian +44 20 3042 4132 Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93 80 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 5JLReceived on Wednesday, 19 December 2012 12:02:27 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:31 UTC