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

On 11/25/18 12:14 PM, thomas lörtsch wrote:
 > My main problem with bnodes is that it’s so hard to see where
 > one structure ends and the next one begins, and what that
 > structure actually is: a list? nested? how deep? a table even?
 > an n-ary relation? where does that end? which node represents
 > its main role?

This could be mitigated if conventions for n-ary relations were 
standardized and supported in a higher-level RDF language, and each 
n-ary relation included some kind of marker indicating that it is an 
n-ary relation, so that tools could recognize it.

> On my wish list are
> - . . .
> - specific templates for certain types like adresses,

Interesting idea.

> - more support for algorithms like Concise Bounded Descriptions.

It seems to me that the purpose of a Concise Bounded Description (CBD) 
is to *guess* an object's intended boundaries, based on the use of blank 
nodes as object connectors, much like curly braces in JSON.  If so, 
perhaps it would be better if those object boundaries were more explicit 
from the start.  This would be possible if we had standard recognizable 
conventions for n-ary relations.

 > But most of all I'd love to see a generic grouping mechanism
 > that is more powerful than RDFs specification of Named
 > Graphs, supporting nesting and composition of named graphs
 > and identification/reification of statements in named graphs
 > (vulgo: quints). Quints are my favoured hammer and they fit
 > many nails . . . .

Interesting idea.

David Booth

Received on Monday, 26 November 2018 07:18:09 UTC