Using Blank Nodes

[jpadfield]

These models have been created to demonstrate how actual literal pieces of information can be linked together using the core CIDOC CRM. The information included does not come from a complete system so "Blank Nodes" have been used throughout the model to indicate nodes in the knowledge graph that do not have specific PIDs yet.

The question here is moving forward should Blank Nodes be used or should all nodes be assigned a PID?

Blank Node are generally used to define nodes that are required to link information together but will not be individually described in any greater depth.

Do people have strong feelings about this?

From comments originally made by @natuk

[jpadfield]

cidoc-crm.examples/models/production/production-triples.csv

Lines 44 to 48 in 91a5c27

	_Blank Node crm:P2.has type crm:E31.Document
	_Blank Node owl:sameAs https://cima.ng-london.org.uk/documentation/files/2009/10/01/Raphael%20Catalogue%20Complete.pdf
	_Blank Node rdfs:label Raphael: From Urbino to Rome@en
	_Blank Node rdfs:seeAlso https://www.book-info.com/isbn/1-85709-999-0.htm
	ngo:002-0432-0000 crm:P70.is documented in _Blank Node

It has been suggested that this specific Blank Node be removed and the first URL just be used as the ID.

I think that this case is a good argument for the Blank Node to be replaced with an actual PID. The URL is a link to a PDF, rather than being an actual PID. SO this needs to be extended to actually reference the document PID and then state that the uRL indicates where a copy can be found.