On 19.02.19 04:03, Dan Scott wrote:
> In a linked data context, I think that forcing a URI to be
> represented as a literal (with a blank node as a bonus), instead of as
> the URI it is, is an anti-pattern.
I agree, but as I pointed out in the last email I also think that it is
bad practice to use an URI when you are talking _about_ the URI (like it
is bad practice to not add quotations when you are talking about a word
in a written sentence).
But there is a third option, we should definitely consider: In my
opinion the best approach is to only use non-URI identifiers in a
bf:identifiedBy statement so that the question does not come up. In the
case that you have different URIs denoting the same resource it probably
is best practice to use schema:sameAs or something similar to state that
those URIs refer to the same thing.