Re: a bnode URI scheme?!

Andrew Newman wrote:

> Isn't that nearly always going to be wrong?  I mean just because an 
> bnode has the same properties (say first name and last name or even just 
> first name) doesn't mean they are the same thing.

Second sentence is true but irrelevant to the first.
A reduction from G to G' is sound and complete iff G entails G' and G' 
entails G by the RDF Semantics. This definition, which in my view is a 
useful take on the RDF Recs, may be worth implementing in software (not 
that I have done so). Any semantic processing of G that does not work on G' 
is potentially non-interoperable and requires thought. In particular 
counting the number of bnodes linked by an eg:foo edge to eg:bar should not 
make any material difference (i.e. semantically relevant) to the actions of 
an RDF processor.

Jeremy