W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2014

Re: An alternative RDF

From: Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 18:05:40 +0300
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: Michael Brunnbauer <brunni@netestate.de>, SW-forum Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-Id: <5974341405004740@web9h.yandex.ru>
10.07.2014, 17:59, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>:
> On Jul 10, 2014, at 8:17 AM, Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru> wrote:
>> š10.07.2014, 16:05, "Michael Brunnbauer" <brunni@netestate.de>:
>>> šHello Victor,
>>>
>>> šwhen using RDF, you cannot decree that certain entities have to be described
>>> šusing blank nodes. RDF users are free to choose between URIs or blank nodes and
>>> šyour app should be able to cope with both.
>> šMy conclusion from this is that the RDF specification should be changed, so that an application would be able to demand that certain nodes are blank.
>
> As stated, this requirement does not make sense. How would one specify which node one wanted to be blank? There is no way to describe a single node in a graph one has not yet seen.

It is my Ada code, which checks whether a node is blank.

It should be just sure that my Ada code is capable to do this check.

>> šAnd despite of that it is not already in the RDF standard, it seems that most of implementation already provide support for this: Using an RDF library I can tell which nodes are blank and which are not.
>
> You can look at nodes and determine which ones are blank nodes, of course. That is part of the RDF syntax.

It is just what I need.

--
Victor Porton - http://portonvictor.org
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2014 15:06:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:49:17 UTC