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

Re: Skolemization and RDF Semantics

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 10:39:55 +0100
Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <62DC5A2A-57AD-48B8-B734-42C6D08EE046@garlik.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
On 2011-04-28, at 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.
> 
> 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...

I think "genid" is fine. It's in somewhat common usage, and sufficiently vague to not cause too much confusion.

- 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 Thursday, 28 April 2011 09:40:24 GMT

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