Re: Blank Nodes Re: Toward easier RDF: a proposal

> Having an oracle that defines what an unambiguous Thing looks like is one
> organisational structure… However I (and perhaps David Booth) am after
> something more anarchic,

I’ll admit to being a bit confused about what you’re getting at. Surely if someone
defines a type for a thing, and gives it a URI, then they are in a position to say
what kind of thing it is and what the type means. Hopefully they’ll convey their 
idea of the meaning of the type (including things like equality) in a machine 
readable way. And maybe people who have data of that kind will like it, or they’ll
use some other type that they think fits better. Some kinds of things are harder
to define than others — I would not want to be the person to work out the details
of street address equality — but that’s ok and not even surprising. 

How does that connote a monolithic oracle? Someone has to mint URIs for types
of things and stand behind them, and everybody is free to choose whatever 
types they like best, or make their own. Sounds like the original anarchic idea.

I get the feeling that I must be missing something very basic here…


Received on Monday, 3 December 2018 23:34:40 UTC