- From: Thomas Passin <tpassin@tompassin.net>
- Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 09:30:50 -0500
- To: Hugh Glaser <hugh@glasers.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, semantic-web@w3.org
On 11/25/2018 8:28 AM, Hugh Glaser wrote: > :foo > :address [ > :number 123; > :street “Acacia Avenue” ] > > I understand that this is saying that :foo has something that is related to it by the :address property. > But it is a bit weird that it then goes on to be very specific about that something. The whole thing could also be expressed as :foo :address _:x1. _:x1 :number 123. _:x1 :street "Acacia Avenue". This aligns closely with what you said: > I see it is also saying there exists something that has two properties: > :number 123; > :street “Acacia Avenue” I don't see the weirdness there... You could in the future add something like this for clarification if you happen to learn that there is a type ex:streetAddress (or an inference system could possibly add it) - _:x1 rdf:type ex:streetAddress. To me, none of this seems weird. There wouldn't be much point to adding an identifier to the address unless someone might want to refer to it later. OTOH, since you don't know how someone else might want to use it later, it seems like it would be good for there to be an unambiguous way to create an identifier to support such other uses. To me, I tend to think it would be useful to know that these identifiers had been made up for formal purposes, so maybe there could be an reserved protocol scheme for them. Maybe like "rdf-blank:asdn-2354-8756". > Because of the way this is then interpreted (I think) for the two bnodes to have the same bnode identifier, > it is saying that there exists something that has all those properties.
Received on Sunday, 25 November 2018 14:31:18 UTC