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

Re: genid:

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:25:48 -0500
Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <959E3FC4-FA7E-4B97-898C-0F2D43873E77@ihmc.us>
To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>

On Apr 20, 2011, at 10:07 AM, Steve Harris wrote:

> 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.

We have strong +1s as well. 

How about blank: rather than bnode: ? ; it conveys the intention without causing such direct confusion (?) Or anon:  or  some:  or unk:  (for UNKnown) or ... 

> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Wednesday, 20 April 2011 21:26:28 GMT

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