W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > April 2011

Re: genid:

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:40:05 +0100
Message-ID: <4DAD82A5.7020704@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org


On 19/04/11 11:59, Ivan Herman wrote:
>
> On Apr 19, 2011, at 12:15 , Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
> <snip/>
>>
>>
>> I don't worry about dereferencability so prefer "genid:"
>
> I think there was a general feeling at the f2f that everybody would
> prefer this, except that... per Sandro, it took 10 years to get the
> tag: schema through IETF, so having a genid: scheme through IETF
> would be a nightmare, let alone that it may not be done by the time
> this working group closes:-(

(Minor, not urgent)

For the genid: URI scheme:

1/ Is it only for bNodes?  "genid" reads as if it's for any generated 
id; there are other schemes already + risk of clashes.

2/ Why not a URN NID? <urn:bnode:...>    Is registration easier?

	Andy

>
> Ivan
>
>
>
>> -- currently provide support for<_:...>  to put bNodes in a
>> different space to URIs while reusing/abusing the syntax.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> FYI:
>>
>> Registry for well-known:
>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/well-known-uris/well-known-uris.xml
>>
>>
>>
Registration list:
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/wellknown-uri-review/current/maillist.html
>>
>>
>
>>
>
> ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home:
> http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 PGP Key:
> http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF:
> http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2011 12:40:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:41 GMT