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

Re: Skolemization and RDF Semantics

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 10:36:41 +0100
Message-ID: <4DB93529.7090501@epimorphics.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
CC: public-rdf-wg@w3.org


On 28/04/11 10:30, Dan Brickley wrote:
> On 28 April 2011 10:36, Andy Seaborne<andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>  wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 27/04/11 22:20, Dan Brickley wrote:
>
>>> Genid +1
>>> Bnode -1
>>> Skolem -1
>>
>> I think "genid" is too generic -- "id generation" and URIs from ids, happens
>> in other situations like keys in data.
>
> Who is the audience? We're not branding a company or product here, so
> usual discussion of messaging and ambiguity might not hold.

Data publishers.

Using a generic name might imply it can be used for other generated ids, 
which makes the reversibility suspect.

	Andy

> The point of the 'wellknown' thing is that the meaning isn't obvious
> from reading the word we choose, but can be well documented. So I
> don't mind 'genid'. Anything with 'bnode' is a bit weird since these
> will be used in URIs. And as others have mentioned, Skolem is by far
> the most interesting word (though I fear what we'll do to it's
> googlability...).
>
>> A name that is indicates to URI-izing bNodes is my preference.
>
> 'xbnode'? Google says it's only been used ~300 times...
>
> Dan
>
>>         Andy
>>
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>
>>
Received on Thursday, 28 April 2011 09:37:12 GMT

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