On 07/10/2014 11:38 AM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> Hi Stuart,
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Stuart Yeates <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> On 07/10/2014 11:15 AM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> _:bnode1 a bf:Instance ;
> bf:uri _:bnode2 .
> _:bnode2 a bf:Identifier ;
> bf:identifierValue "http://www.example.com/books/__book1
> <http://www.example.com/books/book1>" .
> The first reads as: "There is a resource without an identifier, an
> Instance, and it has an identifier that's a URI."
> The first should read "There is a resource (which I'm not supplying
> an global identifier for right here), an Instance, and it has an
> identifier that's a URI."
> "_:bnode1" is an identifier, it's just a scoped identifier (limited
> to the current dataset / file). Think of it as like a file:/// or a
> http://localhost/ URI; very useful for internal processes and
> processing, but not to be shown in public.
> Yes, I was careless with the use of "identifier" :) I did indeed mean
> without a global identifier.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-blank-nodes is clear that
> blank nodes are disjoint from IRIs, and are always locally scoped. If
> it wasn't an identifier /at all/ you couldn't refer to it in the graph.
> However I don't think that changes my point that it's very strange to
> say, as corrected:
> Line 1: There is a resource without a global identifier which is an
The implication of using a blank node is not "without a global
identifier" but "without a global identifier I care to supply here".
There are lots of reasons where graphs are likely to use blank nodes
rather than global identifiers for many or most of their references to a