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

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

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 18:50:20 +0100
Cc: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, semantic-web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A9D92847-BBAC-4262-94C8-C3D3E65DDD00@bblfish.net>
To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>

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

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

Received on Wednesday, 19 December 2012 17:50:55 UTC

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