- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 15:06:50 +0200
- 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 http://svn.foaf-project.org/foaftown/2010/allfactoids/copies/libby/webwho.xrdf 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. Dan
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2011 13:07:18 UTC