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 17:47:59 +0100
Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <5DA78159-D990-47AB-B07C-CD25CFD54C41@garlik.com>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
On 2011-04-28, at 10:36, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> 
> 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.

Equally, it could be intended though.

There's a risk that someone might see the .well-known/genid/ pattern in published URIs, and copy it without realising the full consequences, but I don't see how calling it /Skolem/, or /xbnode/, or anything else makes that any less likely.

- 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 16:48:33 GMT

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