| 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 the $ as a delimiter) is a rather questionable convention. I guess I am not clear on why the MW API should constrain RDF serialization. They are separate implementations. Is there a convenient "round trip" import from RDF mechanism available in the API? If not, who cares about what the MW API expects.
The basic problem is with the "claim" design. It seems to me that Statement GUIDs are actually unnecessary overhead because the subject of a claim is always the item/entity. There is really no need to mint a GUID subject for the claim. If you needed to have a separate statement node, it may have been better to do something like this:
<> wikibase:hasClaim _:b1 _:b1 wdt:someprop "somevalue"
A bnode is always an object of a <> resource first.
Cc: Smalyshev, Aklapper, Christopher, EBjune, merbst, Avner, debt, Gehel, D3r1ck01, Jonas, FloNight, Xmlizer, Izno, jkroll, Wikidata-bugs, Jdouglas, aude, Deskana, Manybubbles, Mbch331
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-bugs mailing list Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs
