RE: bNodes wanted

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=''/>
     <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 [] 
Sent: 23 May 2002 22:16
To: Seaborne, Andy
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 []

Received on Friday, 24 May 2002 06:30:30 UTC