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

Re: Toward easier RDF: a proposal

From: Andy Seaborne <andy@seaborne.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:05:01 +0000
To: semantic-web@w3.org
Message-ID: <e2473d90-f9fc-07fc-ad94-9271fa9d1022@seaborne.org>


On 10/12/2018 17:04, Franconi Enrico wrote:
> Hi,
> I believe that, in order to properly/correctly solve this issue, SPARQL 
> implementations could provide a mean to get for each bnode in a SPARQL 
> query answer the data graph node /*bound*/ to it, e.g., for each SPARQL 
> query result  there could be a table with bindings: <result-bnode, 
> data-graph-node>.
>
> IMHO it would be wrong (and not necessary, in this case) to give 
> persistent identifiers to bnodes.
> cheers
> --e.

The rules for system identifiers would need to limits on their 
persistence (e.g. may change, non-reuse) but instead of dealing with the 
cases one-by-one, have one general mechanism and it should be applicable 
to network use which means some kind of serialization.

Extend "IRI(bnode)" to be skolemization, for example.

I'd prefer to introduce a separate space for bnode system ids, but 
skolemization/distinguished IRIs do seem to cover many uses and are RDF 1.1.

     Andy

> 
> 
>> On 10 Dec 2018, at 17:30, David Booth <david@dbooth.org 
>> <mailto:david@dbooth.org>> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/10/18 5:34 AM, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:
>>> I'd really like to see mandatory persistent blank node identifiers in
>>> SPARQL - so I can easily do followup queries for blank nodes from a 
>>> SPARQL
>>> result. Is this a big deal? I think some triples stores can already 
>>> do this.
>>> Which issue do I upvote to get this?
>>
>> Blank nodes #19:
>> https://github.com/w3c/EasierRDF/issues/19
>>
>> David Booth
>>
> 
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2018 11:05:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:42:03 UTC