Re: Toward easier RDF: a proposal

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.


>> On 10 Dec 2018, at 17:30, David Booth < 
>> <>> 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 
>>> 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:
>> David Booth

Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2018 11:05:31 UTC