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

On 7/16/20 9:58 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
> I believe the big appeal of putting it all into the zone we call 
> "literals" is that you get a kind of atomicity; that chunk of data is 
> either there, or not there; it is asserted, or not asserted. With a 
> triples-based (description of a ) data structure you have to be 
> constantly on your guard that every subset of the full graph pattern is 
> at least sensible and harmless, even when subsetting these chunks is 
> often confusing or misleading for data consumers. I can't help wondering 
> whether notions of graph shapes [ . . . ] could be 
> exploited to create an RDF-based data format which had atomicity at the 
> level of entire shapes.

+1

IMO the ability to manipulate chunks of data atomically -- arrays, n-ary 
tuples and hierarchical objects -- is a key requirement in developing a 
higher-level form of RDF.   This will include the need to conveniently 
construct and deconstruct such chunks in rules or query languages.

David Booth

Received on Thursday, 16 July 2020 14:19:11 UTC