David Booth

@iherman , If RDF processing were limited to Turtle-only tools that would always retain relative URIs, then that approach could work. But if we want to allow the full range...

@namedgraph , yes I am well aware of that, and it is important. However, there is a significant downside of requiring absolute URIs, as issue #12 explains. IMO the way...

Many years ago W3C collected some [case studies](https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/), but I don't know of a current collection.

That's an interesting point, but I don't think it fully solves the problem, because nested predicates having the same name need to map to _different_ URIs, to avoid information loss....

Nice! That does have the minor limitation that it still requires the JSON document to be analyzed in advance -- or its schema already known -- in order to emit...

@darth-willy the problem is not the re-use of existing IRIs per se. The problem is that users are forced to refer to those IRIs *verbatim* (modulo namespace prefixes) whenever they...

If you have control over your RDF authors, then yes you could restrict your authors to the approved list of predicates and classes (for example). But even if you don't...

Yes, exactly. Those are some of the use cases and workarounds that would be addressed if we had better standard mechanisms to address this issue.

@darth-willy, yes that is a pretty good summary. You could think of these topics as being independent, but I think it's helpful to step back and take a broader view...

@dbooth-boston wrote: > sameAs services can be quite useful, but one cautionary note: in the end they can only suggest synonymous URIs. @HughGlaser wrote: > I disagree very strongly. Sorry,...