- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 01:26:16 -0500
- To: semantic-web <semantic-web@w3.org>
On 11/24/18 6:50 AM, Hugh Glaser wrote: > And no, I don't want a Blank Node for [a location that has > labels] - the system that generates this should create a URI > if it doesn't already have one ;-) I like this line of thought. I would much rather have auto-generated URIs, that are predictable and distinguishable as auto-generated, than blank nodes. And even better, those auto-generated URIs could be generated using a standard algorithm, so that all tools would generate them the same way. 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", i.e., they do not contain blank node cycles. http://www.websemanticsjournal.org/index.php/ps/article/download/365/387 If blank node cycles were prohibited in RDF, then predictable URIs could be automatically generated for those blank nodes, bottom-up recursively based on the tree structure. And prohibiting blank node cycles would not be a huge loss, because even the few cases that do use blank node cycles could be brought into conformance by replacing a few of the blank nodes with URIs, to break the cycles. David Booth
Received on Monday, 26 November 2018 06:26:40 UTC