W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > May 2002

RE: bNodes wanted

From: Seaborne, Andy <Andy_Seaborne@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 11:29:58 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F038D38D6@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Aaron Swartz'" <me@aaronsw.com>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Two cases where I use bNodes (which may be different to what they are meant

1/ the thing is not web resource (people, organisations, email messages and
that Porsche I don't have)
2/ grouping to build information about a composite concept

Abusing the ontology for ISWC:

     <homepage rdf:resource='http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/afs'/>
     <name rdf:parseType="Resource">

I am not a web resource but can be found by my homepage.  My name has
structure and this could be useful to retain.

You can refer to a bNode - you find it by query.  It is especially
interesting if you find more than one.  URIs don't really have such a
priviledged place - we could have all bNodes and a property "hasURI" and
then everything is found by query.


-----Original Message-----
From: Aaron Swartz [mailto:me@aaronsw.com] 
Sent: 23 May 2002 22:16
To: Seaborne, Andy
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Subject: Re: bNodes wanted

On Thursday, May 23, 2002, at 07:36  AM, Seaborne, Andy wrote:

> A precursor to better modelling is more bNodes - and a general
> enthusiasm to
> use them.  I think people shy away from them at present which hurts data
> integration (amongst other things).

Could you elaborate? I've always found bNodes a bad idea, since, among 
other things, you can't refer to them and so I strongly recommend 
against them.

Aaron Swartz [http://www.aaronsw.com]
Received on Friday, 24 May 2002 06:30:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:36 UTC