Re: deterministic naming of blank nodes

> On 21 May 2015, at 18:27, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
> 
> 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.

Ah well. Never mind who advocated for it. I can see that the pressure of finishing
the sepc may have had something to do with that. 

As long as it is something that we can acknowledge is not a good idea, this could 
be fixed  by putting a note in the current document that this is controversial, and perhaps provide a better solution in the next version.

Clearly there is nothing wrong with skolemisation and stable blank nodes would be
very useful in many cases, such as for PATCHes to a document.

All the best,

 Henry

> 
> David Booth

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/

Received on Thursday, 21 May 2015 16:38:18 UTC