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

Re: Scoping bnodes

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 18:43:16 -0500
To: Patrick J Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
Message-ID: <edb5bb3b-6024-e616-4486-5785cd6419a6@dbooth.org>
On 12/8/18 2:32 AM, Patrick J Hayes wrote:
>> 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.

Actually I was wondering about use cases.  What additional use cases do 
you think scoped bnode would address, other than the two that I 
mentioned above?

David Booth
Received on Sunday, 9 December 2018 23:43:38 UTC

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