W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > July 2001

RE: Proposal: #rdfms-identity-anon-resources

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>
Message-ID: <EMEKICCGFEKJFGKMFLEPIEKODAAA.rdaniel@interwoven.com>
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.

Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2001 23:35:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:50 UTC