Hi Stuart, On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Stuart Yeates <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On 07/10/2014 11:15 AM, Robert Sanderson wrote: > > Thus: >> _:bnode1 a bf:Instance ; >> bf:uri _:bnode2 . >> _:bnode2 a bf:Identifier ; >> bf:identifierValue "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 Instance. Line 2: That resource has a URI which is a resource without a global identifier. Line 3: That second resource is an Identifier. Line 4: And it has a value of a global identifier, recorded as a string literal. Rob -- Rob Sanderson Technology Collaboration Facilitator Digital Library Systems and Services Stanford, CA 94305