- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:13:09 +0100
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Cc: public-rdf-comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
David, On 16 Jul 2012, at 03:52, David Booth wrote: > I am surprised to see that the ".well-known" prefix for skolemized > bnodes is currently "genid": > http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#section-skolemization > I think "bnode" or "blanknode" would be much more suggestive of its > purpose, and therefore more helpful to the community. Many (most?) > instance URIs are generated anyway, so calling it a "genid" isn't saying > much. > > I suggest changing "genid" to "bnode" or "blanknode". There was a poll between the alternatives "bnode", "genid" and "skolem" here: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2011-05-25 "genid" won. IIRC the argument that carried the day against "bnode" was: "It's not a bnode." Lots of background discussion linked from here: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/40 and in two threads named "Re: genid:" and "Re: Skolemization and RDF Semantics" in April 2011: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Apr/thread.html Best, Richard > > > > -- > David Booth, Ph.D. > http://dbooth.org/ > > Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily > reflect those of his employer. > >
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2012 09:13:35 UTC