Re: Why do we name nodes and not edges?

Nothing stops you from giving edges a unique URI, infact I think I've worked on systems that did that.

e.g.

<foo> <http://example.com/edge/123456> 1 .
<http://example.com/edge/123456> a rdf:Property .
...

- Steve

On 2012-07-25, at 16:07, Melvin Carvalho wrote:

> Sorry if this topic has been covered before, but I have a question based on the axioms of the web, in particular:
> 
> Axiom 0a: Universality 2    Any resource of significance should be given a URI.
> 
> In this case we consider the web to be a directed graph (of nodes and edges), where a node corresponds to a resource but edge does not.
> 
> We are encouraged to make nodes universal by giving them a URI.
> 
> Why dont edges get the same treatment, ie encouragment to give it a (universal) name.  Is it even practical?
> 
> I know there's such thing as reification but that seems to be unpopular (maybe before my time).
> 
> I'm just curious as to whether this seems asymmetrical, that nodes are seemigly treated in one way, and edges in another?

-- 
Steve Harris, CTO
Garlik, a part of Experian
+44 7854 417 874  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93
Registered office: Landmark House, Experian Way, Nottingham, Notts, NG80 1ZZ