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". http://www.websemanticsjournal.org/index.php/ps/article/download/365/387 David BoothReceived on Monday, 26 November 2018 04:33:08 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:51:16 UTC