- From: Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 16:09:17 -0500
- To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Cc: Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru>, Michael Brunnbauer <brunni@netestate.de>, SW-forum Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAMVTWDzq=4gdnWFkkXMUhoCSgaX9-_PtiW8OG8TmWsTCVTbuSA@mail.gmail.com>
Timbl, all, This new publication seems appropriate Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Blank Nodes http://www.websemanticsjournal.org/index.php/ps/article/view/365 Juan Sequeda +1-575-SEQ-UEDA www.juansequeda.com On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 4:56 AM, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org> wrote: > > On 2014-07 -10, at 14:17, Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru> wrote: > > > 10.07.2014, 16:05, "Michael Brunnbauer" <brunni@netestate.de>: > >> Hello Victor, > >> > >> when using RDF, you cannot decree that certain entities have to be > described > >> using blank nodes. RDF users are free to choose between URIs or blank > nodes and > >> your app should be able to cope with both. > > > > My 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. > > > > And 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. > > > > Again: I demand to change the RDF specification. The rationale: Users > should be able to construct an RDF file in such a way that loading more RDF > files would not break its consistency. It is important. > > Victor, > > You are saying you want to force a structure like > > <#office> :manager [ :name "Bob"; ssn 123456789; :dob > "1966-01-01" ] . > > and not > > <#office> :manager <#Bob>. > <#Bob> :name "Bob"; ssn 123456789; :dob "1966-01-01" . > > because you will be safe from encountering data from someone like > > <#Bob> :dob "1966-05-06" . > > which would lead you to conclude in total > > <#office> :manager <#Bob>. > <#Bob> :name "Bob"; :ssn 123456789; :dob "1966-01-01" , > "1966-05-06" . > > which is obviously inconsistent to anyone who knows :dob is functional. > > But if you have the blank node > > <#office> :manager [ :name "Bob"; ssn 123456789; :dob > "1966-01-01" ] . > > and someone also provides a graph > > [ :ssn 123456789 ] :dob "1966-01-01" . > > then your total data is anyway inconsistent to anyone who knows that :ssn > is inverse functional. > Your problem is not the shape of the graph, it is you have to decide which > to believe. > You have incorrect data. > > Depending on your application, your choice will mess up statistics in a > study in a very minor way, or someone will be denied a job, or a plane will > crash. RDF won't tell you what to do in general. > > > timbl > >
Received on Friday, 11 July 2014 21:10:04 UTC