W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > December 2018

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

From: Andy Seaborne <andy@seaborne.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 10:54:04 +0000
To: semantic-web@w3.org
Message-ID: <e03a59bb-4eed-d795-3a8d-a32770862358@seaborne.org>


On 03/12/2018 21:38, Patrick J Hayes wrote:
>> On Dec 3, 2018, at 3:13 PM, Nathan Rixham <nathan@webr3.org 
>> <mailto:nathan@webr3.org>> wrote:
>> Open question: why can the scope of quantification not be the edge of 
>> the RDF Graph
> 
> Where is that edge? The RDF specs say that an RDF graph is a /set/ of 
> triples. What determknes the ‘edge’ of a set? If you mean the document 
> describing the graph, then yes, that is a natural default assumption, I 
> agree, but as soon as you start taking bits of RDF from many sources and 
> combining them, those boundaries get lost. And that was the intended 
> purpose of RDF, to allow information from many sources to be combined 
> and used together.

+1

> 
>> , what is the use case / requirement for blank nodes to be shared 
>> between graphs?
> 
> The issue is not so much a use case for sharing, as how to even know 
> when bnodes are NOT being shared.  For one example, many users expect to 
> be able to use bnodeIDs in the result of a query ‘outside’ the graph 
> being queried, eg in subsequent queries.

And subgraphs.

It is also important in building and modifying RDF.

When working with RDF across machine boundaries, whether "inside" a 
distributed graph or working with a graph that is remote, programming 
APIs don't apply and having custom remote protocols are burdensome.

     Andy

> Pat
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2018 10:54:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:57 UTC