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

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

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:12:51 -0400 (EDT)
To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
cc: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>, Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>, Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>, RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0107161102340.3430-100000@tux.w3.org>
On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Aaron Swartz wrote:

> On Thursday, July 12, 2001, at 06:29  AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>
> > emitting the 'same' invented-URIs for un-named resource mentions is
> > risky: if we make the generated ID purely a function of the
> > bag-of-bytes
> > XML document we could get situations where relative URIs are used to
> > mention _different_ resources, but result in a parser emitting the same
> > generated ID. I don't have time to cook up an example right
> > here, but for
> > eg. <foo rdf:resource="../index.html"/> in different contexts means
> > something different, so an rdf/xml doc including that might be
> > mentioning
> > a different pair of resources.
>
> Well, obviously the URI generated would have to be based upon
> the base URI of the document -- otherwise it wouldn't work, as
> you point out.
>
> Does that solve the issue? If not, can you provide more specifics?

Consider the same bag-of-bytes document on different days (years). Nothing
licenses the inference that the anonymously mentioned resource in 1999
and 2001 publications of the document are the same.

<s:Document rdf:about="this.html">
<s:editor>
  <wn:Person>
   <foaf:mbox rdf:resource="mailto:webmaster@this.example.com"/>
   <rdfs:seeAlso rdf:resource="../../webmaster-profile.xrdf"/>
  </wn:Person>
</s:editor>
</s:Document>


I don't see any reason for us to presume that the anonymously-mentioned
instance of wn:Person in two occurances of this document must be
identical when the rdf/xml bytes are identical and the base URIs are
identical. Actually since i've used 'foaf:mbox'[1] (which is a daml unique
property) one could find evidence to support this, but nothing at the
vanilla RDF level does).

--danbri


[1] http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
Received on Monday, 16 July 2001 11:13:23 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:38:11 EDT