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

Re: genid:

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 23:45:37 +0100
Message-Id: <749822C4-65DE-462A-B5D5-3EB32A033E14@garlik.com>
To: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 2011-04-19, at 13:40, Andy Seaborne 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.
> 
> 2/ Why not a URN NID? <urn:bnode:...>    Is registration easier?

It appears to be, the last one, 6061, went from draft to final in around 3 months, if I'm reading it correctly:
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?difftype=--hwdiff&url2=rfc6061 [warning, takes a long time to load].

- Steve

-- 
Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2011 22:46:06 GMT

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