- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:43:00 +0100
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
On 26 Jun 2008, at 14:35, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: [snip] > Thanks for the example. > I agree that care would need to be taken. It seems that what needs > to be avoided are collisions. That solves one problem by introducing another. Data URIs might help. > Allocating unique names is a fairly common practice these days - a > combination of mac address, system time in milliseconds , and a > reasonably sized random salt should be sufficient to ensure > uniqueness. Uhm...so what happens to my annotations? Imports? If I serialize it twice I end up with distinct subjects to my annotations. Or if people downstream rely on those names which are "merely" syntactic...bleah! > What about the other way around - the "same" axiom having multiple > differently named reifications - this would seem to be analogous to > the current bnode case? Seems worse. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2008 14:40:47 UTC