W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > May 2015

Re: deterministic naming of blank nodes

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 12:27:33 -0400
Message-ID: <555E0775.8080304@dbooth.org>
To: "henry.story@bblfish.net" <henry.story@bblfish.net>, Steve Harris <steve.harris@aistemos.com>
CC: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, ahogan@dcc.uchile.cl, semantic-web@w3.org
On 05/21/2015 06:06 AM, henry.story@bblfish.net wrote:
>> On 21 May 2015, at 10:08, Steve Harris <steve.harris@aistemos.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> Alternatively, some SPARQL servers may use stable internal
>>>> identifiers that could serve this purpose (still requiring
>>>> normative normalization), but I suspect that there are some
>>>> implementations that don’t guarantee such stable identifiers).
>>> Right, it would involve enhancing SPARQL servers.
>> Quite a few can do this already, and there’s a syntax sanctioned by
>> RDF 1.1
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-skolemization
> yes, except that skolemization using .well-konwn URLs is ugly,
> broken, and should never have made it into RDF1.1 spec. It breaks
> linked data clients that need to analyse the full uri for .wellknown
> urls before deciding wether to follow them. it would be better to
> have coined bnode URNs of some form. I made a suggestion along those
> lines at some point.
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2014Sep/0088.html

FWIW I agree.  I'm pretty sure I advocated for .well-known at the time 
(*ugh*), but in hindsight a URN prefix would have been a better hack.

David Booth
Received on Thursday, 21 May 2015 16:28:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:42 UTC