Re: Blank nodes must DIE! [ was Re: Blank nodes semantics - existential variables?]

>
> I think of datatype IRIs as hardly being in the RDF world.
>

Hi Hugh. Yeah that's right, I feel like they might have wider potential
though. Its relevance to this discussion is that in my view composite
values are the one use case where using a blank node rather than a URL
might actually be better modeling. But it seems the only way to explicitly
say something is a value type is by using literal syntax. Feels like a
hole, unless I'm just not understanding something (totally possible 😅).

Isn't it the whole point of the current (sub)discussion ?
>

Agree, Nicolas. It is kinda the whole point.

Anthony

On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 7:51 AM Nicolas Chauvat <nicolas.chauvat@logilab.fr>
wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 08:28:05AM -0400, Thomas Passin wrote:
> > the same points if they are not (and yes, I know that it could be
> considered
> > a nice philosophical question whether they are "really" the same, but
> let's
> > not enter in that here).
>
> Isn't it the whole point of the current (sub)discussion ?
>
> Would you say that in the real world there are several different
> literals that can have the value "hello" or would you say that two
> literals that have the same value can be considered to be the same ?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_interning shows that some
> programming languages store only one copy of immutable strings (or
> immutable composite values/immutable structs in some cases) even when
> these strings that have the same value are created at different places
> and times in the program.
>
> Why would you call that question "philosophical" ? Do you mean it is
> irrelevant ? If you think it is irrelevant, could you explain why ?
>
> --
> Nicolas Chauvat
>
> logilab.fr - services en informatique scientifique et gestion de
> connaissances
>