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

Re: Blank Nodes Re: Toward easier RDF: a proposal

From: Thomas Passin <tpassin@tompassin.net>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 13:02:38 -0500
To: Jiří Procházka <ojirio@gmail.com>, semantic-web@w3.org
Message-ID: <7c305cb6-7980-d7e6-e43f-b3c67663ea2b@tompassin.net>

> Hi, yes, using a blank node is not like a record in a DB without a
> primary key. Say you have a Turtle document:
> 
> :ID123 :name "John" ; :location [ :country :USA ] .
> 
> Which might as well be a table row:
> 
> PersonLocations
> | PersonID | Country |
> | 123      | USA     |

> The intention most probably was to express "John is at*a*  location in
> USA" (which someone might want to refer to or expand on later), not
> "There exists one or more locations in USA where John is located", the
> latter being what the the Turtle document is actually expressing.
> I think blank nodes are misused in overwhelming majority of cases.

Not that it matters much here, but I don't see a distinction that leads 
to "using a blank node is not like a record in a DB without a primary 
key".  In a well-named table, the table name will express something 
about the purpose of the relations in the table.  This will, (or 
*might*) reduce the guessing ("the intention most probably was ..."). 
You could bring that intention to a blank node by giving it an 
appropriate type, but still it wouldn't need an id assigned.
Received on Sunday, 25 November 2018 18:12:15 UTC

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