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

Re: Model-specific identity for anon resources, and its representation: A new issue?

From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 19:23:21 -0500
Message-Id: <200106160026.f5G0Q9908737@theinfo.org>
Cc: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>, <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>, <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>

On Friday, June 15, 2001, at 07:13  PM, Dan Brickley wrote:

>>> I don't agree that anonymous nodes should be part of the abstract
>>> syntax, and would suggest to consider this issue when cleaning up the
>>> model.
> I disagree: it is critically important to distinguish between 
> well known,
> public URI names for things and ad-hoc generated placeholder 
> IDs that have
> been dreamt up by an RDF/XML parser. Unless the abstract syntax (or
> whatever we call it) maintains that distinction, we risk getting into a
> terrible muddle.

OK, fine, but do it in a way so that *I* can still come up with 
ad-hoc names. IOW, use a forSome triple or something to specify 
this effect -- don't count on a side-effect of the current 
language to denote this!

>> I tend to agree with this position. However, I would take it one
>> step further -- I believe that these "uniquely generated
>> resources" should have consistent, repeatably generated URIs.
>> That is, all parsers should assign the same genid to the same
>> resource.
> do you really mean this last claim?
> I suspect you meant that all parsers should assign a predictable genid
> given a common RDF/XML description mentioning a resource. 'all parsers
> should assign the same genid to the same resource' would be 
> magic, since
> many times parsers won't have that information accessible.

Yes, that's what I meant.

[ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ]
Received on Friday, 15 June 2001 20:23:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:49 UTC