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