Re: Can I assume that blank node is not replaceable by a IRI?

On 12/23/2017 1:16 PM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> Apart from this case, yeah, it's typically heresy to make a
> distinction between bnodes and IRIs. Beyond the idealogical notion
> they both stand for RDF nodes, practically, it's a bit impolite to
> users to say that they can't substitute bnodes with IRIs in order to
> get a stable identifier. (This is quite useful in debugging.)

Stepping a little above RDF, a thing can be identified by an identifier, 
or it can be identified by its properties (or both).  It's still the 
same thing, though.  And actually, since an identifying IRI can be 
considered a property of its node, all the cases really boil down to the 
one case: a node is identified by its properties.

If you use a bnode, you are identifying a node by its (non-id) 
properties, including which other nodes it connects to.

Adding an IRI wouldn't change the identity of the node, unless of course 
it were not a unique ID.


Received on Saturday, 23 December 2017 19:41:58 UTC