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

On 11/23/18 3:22 AM, Wouter Beek wrote> Would it . . . be possible to 
keep the benefits of abbreviated N3
> notation while at the same time doing away with blank nodes?  E.g., by
> automatically introducing well-known IRIs instead.

I believe so, and this approach would immediately eliminate some of the 
problems with blank nodes:

  - Those unstable blank node 
identifiers-that-are-not-really-identifiers would become stable identifiers.

  - Follow-up SPARQL queries would work as expected.

  - Duplicate triples would be automatically avoided when the same 
triples are loaded twice, without any special effort.

Furthermore, if explicit blank nodes were eliminated also, then *all* of 
the blank node problems would disappear.  And explicit blank nodes are 
rare!   Most RDF involves implicit blank nodes.  By "explicit blank 
nodes" I mean blank nodes that *cannot* be written using [] syntax in 
Turtle or N3.  If an RDF graph can be written using only implicit blank 
nodes then it forms a tree structure.

As Aiden Hogen et all point out in "Everything You Always Wanted to Know 
About Blank Nodes": "the vast majority of blank nodes form tree structures".

David Booth

Received on Monday, 26 November 2018 04:33:08 UTC