On 7/9/14, 5:16 PM, Stuart Yeates wrote:
> On 07/10/2014 11:58 AM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>> 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".
>> Well, okay, but that just makes it even more ridiculous:
>> There is a resource without a global identifier that I care to supply
>> here (line 1), and here's its global identifier (line 2-4).
>> QED? :)
> Yes. This is standard in RDF.
> Bear in mind that raw RDF data formats are aimed primarily at machines.
> When handling datasets orders of magnitude that the available RAM,
> there are several useful processing modes which make radically
> different assumptions than data processing systems we might be used
> to. In these kinds of context what might seem trivial doesn't turn out
> to be and conversely, some things that seem hard become significantly
> easier. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map-reduce
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_stream_mining etc.
Stuart, yes, admittedly, RDF data formats are to be ingested/manipulated
by machines. But there is also a component of linking which requires
predictable patterns. So if you have enterprise data in RDF with a
particular pattern for discovery of an identifier, that's fine. But if
your data is to interact with data in a larger, more open context, then
you cannot expect other communities to be aware of a complex pattern for
discovery of global identifiers.
I'm no expert in SPARQL, but I am going to presume that
a http://bibframe.org/vocab/Book .
Will result in more retrievals on queries for things of type
_:bnode1 a bf:Instance ;
bf:uri _:bnode2 .
_:bnode2 a bf:Identifier ;
bf:identifierValue "http://www.example.com/books/book1" .
In other words, the further down you bury the key information (the URI
for the thing) the less likely your data will be discovered and linked.
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net