- From: Patrick J Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2018 01:32:17 -0600
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- CC: <semantic-web@w3.org>
> On Dec 5, 2018, at 3:41 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote: > > On 12/3/18 4:38 PM, Patrick J Hayes wrote: >>> Bnodes introduced to encode >>> structures like n-ary relational assertions, or lists, or some >>> complicated piece of OWL syntax, should have a very narrow scope >>> corresponding to the exact boundaries of those structures, and >>> hence should be ‘invisible’ from outside (which is why it is fine >>> to make them vanish in a higher-level syntax using [ ] or ( ).) >>> >>> Ideally, RDF2 should provide for these structures directly, but >>> maybe we can get the benefit with a relatively tiny step, just by >>> having a syntax for RDF which has explicit scoping brackets. > > Interesting idea, and I can see it being useful for RDF streams or very large RDF datasets -- to enable blank node labels to be safely reused without collision -- but I am also curious: > > 1. How would you envision scope names being used? I was thinking of them simply as a lexical trick to allow bnodes to be ‘bound’ at a particular scope. > > 2. How would these scopes differ from named graphs? They enclose part of a graph, and they can be nested. The intention is that they can be completely ignored and the graph stays being correct RDF. But yes, you could think of this as a variant on graph naming, I guess. I havnt thought through the consequences of this, however, and it might cause some problems. > > 3. Would (or could or should) these scopes correspond to N3's curly brace syntax for grouping triples? Probably very close, though I dont know whether N3 can bind bnode variables. Pat > > David Booth >
Received on Saturday, 8 December 2018 07:32:43 UTC