Re: shared identifiers, sameAs [ was Re: Blank nodes must DIE! [ was Re: Blank nodes semantics - existential variables?]]

On 7/3/20 5:10 PM, Jiří Procházka wrote:
> Dan, I like this perspective. Could you please elaborate on this part?
> 
>> There is btw an issue with RDF in that each node can have at most one URI
>> on it, which makes the use of transient/local IDs attractive so that the
>> single place for global stable well-known IDs doesn't get "used up". If we
>> all love URIs so much, could we find a way to have RDF with multiple URIs
>> per graph node, perhaps? Or are we going to be stuck "sameAs-ing" them
>> together across multiple co-referring nodes forever?
> 
> I don't want to guess what you meant by that or what would you propose
> to address it. Could you provide an example of the issue?
> 
> I don't see much of a problem with minting new URIs for things which are
> defined say in DBpedia and "sameAs-ing". Definitions and various
> documents can evolve and diverge, so there being an option for consumers
> to ignore the sameAs mapping, which sameAs being a semantic extension
> and expressed in triples (ideally in a separate graph) provides, based
> on criteria like provenance etc. is a good thing.
> 
> Currently it seems to me that 1) the work of for publishers is simple
> (could it even be simpler?) 2) I can't see how the consumers could avoid
> the mapping work nor the consideration if to do it or not.

FWIW I agree with Dan's point, though I don't look at it so much as 
"using up" the URI space, but rather as a combination of:

  - Creating stable URIs is much more difficult in practice than in 
theory, because it requires a hosted domain name that will live for a 
long time.  RDF producers should not be forced to bear that up-front cost.

  - Developers should be able to use their own local names for things, 
but map them to well-known URIs later

See also https://github.com/w3c/EasierRDF/issues/17

David Booth

Received on Saturday, 4 July 2020 01:23:00 UTC