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

Re: genid:

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:07:45 +0100
Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <0704178F-1B5B-43C1-BCF7-30D96B0A7DCC@garlik.com>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
On 2011-04-20, at 08:43, Andy Seaborne wrote:
On 19/04/11 13:50, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> 
>> On Apr 19, 2011, at 14:40 , 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?
>> 
>> yes
>> 
>>> "genid" reads as if it's for any generated id; there are other schemes already + risk of clashes.
> 
> In that case, I suggest that "bnode" is better than "genid" because generated ids can occur for other reasons, and potentially confusing for RDF, IRI generation from some database key.

Strong -1 - these are not bNodes, but something else, derived from bNodes.

Note that 4store uses <bnode:...>, and I'm still anti.

- 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 Wednesday, 20 April 2011 15:08:17 GMT

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