- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 21:29:13 -0500
- To: semantic-web@w3.org
- Cc: Hugh Glaser <hugh@glasers.org>
On 11/29/18 6:12 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote: >> David Booth wrote: >> In my own experience, objects composed of literal attributes >> like this generally *do* form a composite key, though >> perhaps other RDF developers have had different experience. > > Since you ask :-) > I'm sorry to report that my experience is that they often don't. Fair enough. I guess it depends a lot on the data origins. > . . . So it would be folly to try to automagically generate URIs > for such bNodes in general - generated unique URIs or sufficiently > large random ones is the best that you can do. Agreed. But I think my point still holds if a (composite) key can be conveniently indicated. > I think that if you consider *all* the properties, essentially > the SCBD, you might get away with it, almost always. > (As someone else pointed out.) I think that would be too risky to rely on. > . . . postal address > gets more difficult. For a start, it is very unusual from > disparate datasets to get such well and uniformly formatted > addresses. . . . Agreed. Data cleaning and normalizing issues will always exist. But I think that's kind of a separate issue. We cannot expect to automagically clean up people's dirty data. But we *can* give users better support for collapsing duplicate nodes if they follow good practices such as indicating keys -- provided that we devise a *convenient* notation for them to do so. > And you need to decide what to do about missing fields. Missing key fields would prevent a standardized URI from being generated. Missing non-key fields would have no impact. David Booth
Received on Friday, 30 November 2018 02:29:35 UTC