re
On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 10:38:58PM +0100, Nathan wrote:
It is important that skolem URIs would be recognizeable., what would
the purpose of them being recognizable, if there were only literals and
URIs?
Applications that generate and store owl:sameAs assertions permanently will
have to
On 7 April 2011 19:45, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
Hi All,
To cut a long story short, blank nodes are a bit of a PITA to work with,
they make data management more complex, new comers don't get them (lest
presented as anonymous objects), and they make graph operations much more
complex
Nathan wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
On Apr 9, 2011, at 4:05 PM, Nathan wrote:
Michael Brunnbauer wrote:
I would prefer a way of skolemizing that does not depend on the
graph name
and can be done by producer *and* consumer of RDF on a voluntary base.
It should be a standard with reference
re
On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 06:45:55PM +0100, Nathan wrote:
To cut a long story short, blank nodes are a bit of a PITA to work with,
Yes.
- would you be happy to give up blank nodes?
No
- just the [] syntax?
I am not sure if I understand that. I know that syntax from SPARQL and N3.
I see
Hi Nathan,
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 18:45 +0100, Nathan wrote:
Hi All,
To cut a long story short, blank nodes are a bit of a PITA to work with,
they make data management more complex, new comers don't get them
(lest presented as anonymous objects), and they make graph operations
much more
