Christopher added a comment.
I can add here that in fcrepo4, that with PR #1187 they have changed to not use RFC5785 for representing Skolemized bnodes. Instead, a new fragment URI convention has been implemented, so internally minted UUIDs are appended to the resource subject as a fragment (aka
Christopher added a comment.
The fact remains that the claim without its entity relationship, represented in the GUID by the Q prefix, would be lost into a vacuum of nothing. And really, the concatenation of an entity ID with its statement UUID (with the expectation that a parser can understand
Christopher added a comment.
Statement IDs should definitely be represented as bnodes (internally) and skolem IRIs externally because they are uniquely defined within an entity node representation. They have no meaning outside of the entity.
The typing semantics of Wikibase values are very
Smalyshev added a comment.
But I'm not sure converting statements, references and values to bnodes is the right thing. References and values are shared between items, converting them to bnodes may create wrong impression I'm afraid. Especially this is true with the introduction of normalized
Smalyshev added a comment.
I'm not sure how skolemization applies to statements: as I understand, skolemization is applied to bNodes having no own identity, however statements do have their own IDs. With references and values, we essentially already doing something like skolemization, but not
