On 19 Dec 2012, at 18:43, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com> wrote: > On 2012-12-19, at 16:36, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: >>> In any otherwise you end up with names that are just complicated blank nodes, and you >>> then have exactly the same problem as blank nodes, except you just end up growning and >>> growing your names as you go along. >> >> Well, except they don't have the same problems as blank nodes: UUID URIs are stable from one query to the next and can be linked to and referenced across document/database-context. > > Yes, this is the key problem with bNodes, which means you have to be /really/ careful about how and when you use them. No, its' the opposite. This is a key problem with UUIDs as I argued in my later mail http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2012Dec/0097.html Not every thing that looks like a URI really works like one. For example file:///... URIs usually are not global identifiers, and even though software accepts it, it's just a hack people use to get around software that forces them into this kind of situation. UUIDs are not a good way to go. They make it look like there is agreement, when in fact conceptually things are just as broken. > We have local hacks to get round the issue, but that's not great. RDF 1.1 bNode skolemisation provides a more generic solution. Something I'd have to look into. > > - Steve A short message from my sponsors: Vive la France! Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
Received on Wednesday, 19 December 2012 17:50:55 UTC