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

Re: genid:

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 15:06:50 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTimvUQn17vjVeeaMsZHAecD0j-5R4g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 19 April 2011 14:40, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> wrote:
> 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.

Yes, we used a bogus 'genid:' URI scheme in the first FOAF files to
indicate invented URIs for people (back when the general consensus
didn't allow HTTP names for real world things, and RDF/XML didn't have
rdf:nodeID), so for eg. in
Libby would write <misc:knowsWell web:resource="genid:poulter"/>.
Nobody claims this as good practice, but that's how we started. Things
soon after moved to using indirect identification via unambiguous
properties; if http-range-14 had been defined and resolved by then,
we'd probably have gone straight to 'real'  URIs.

Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2011 13:07:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:58 UTC