- From: Ron Daniel <rdaniel@interwoven.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 20:33:47 -0700
- To: "Aaron Swartz" <me@aaronsw.com>, "Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
- Cc: "RDF core WG" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Aaron said: > On Wednesday, July 11, 2001, at 12:27 PM, Graham Klyne wrote: > > > 1. Are anonymous resources allowed in the abstract graph syntax? > > Not explicitly... I mean, I'm fine with triples stating > anonymity, but not with a special type of "anonymous" resource. I completely agree. This seems to be very common in implementations, we should make it clear. > > No specific mechanism for generating such URIs is mandated, but > > the following options might be considered: > > This is the problem I have. I think all parsers should spit out > equivalent genids for the same document -- the spec should > mandate the genid to use. I sort of agree. It would be nice, but I don't think it is mandatory. If we assume that the serialization of RDF is intended to move models between systems, the capability is already there to provide the URIs of all items deemed important. Forcing generated IDs to follow a particular scheme would make comparing models much easier, but there are some thorny issues around identity that we would have to tackle. I'd be happy with a non-normative convention suggesting how the IDs should be generated. I don't want it to be a MUST in the clarified spec. Ron
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2001 23:35:35 UTC