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

On 7/16/2020 11:29 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 at 15:43, Patrick J Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us 
> <mailto:phayes@ihmc.us>> wrote:
> 
>     I just noticed that Dan already said this in his email. Sorry, Dan,
>     but +1.
> 
> 
> Let's talk it through.
> 
> In normal RDF, the marketplace of structures you can use to make 
> statements operate at a painfully fine-grained level, triple by triple 
> you can draw upon types and properties that are already in use, as well 
> as URIs standing for the things being described.
> 
> In a "ShapedRDF" data format (and database?) there would be chunks that 
> (could/should/must) correspond to shapes defined in SHACL/ShEx/etc., and 
> which ...
> 
>   -in the data format, a publisher would be either asserting the whole 
> thing, or not;
> - in a database (e.g. accessed via SPARQL) something would ensure that 
> it was either all there, or all gone
> - for a parser, there would be checking to not generate triples for 
> incomplete or ill-formed shape chunks?
> 
> Something like RDFStar or Property Graphs could allow the shapes to be 
> explicitly indicated in concrete syntax. But maybe that isn't needed? 
> Perhaps the shape commitments would be declared up front at the top of 
> the file like namespaces or json-ld @context definitions?
> Thinking out loud...
> 

Basically, it's a schema language for RDF documents/graphs, right?

TomP

Received on Thursday, 16 July 2020 16:22:02 UTC