- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 23:45:37 +0100
- 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 UTC