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

OOps, there's a PS here.

On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Aaron Swartz wrote:

> On Saturday, June 23, 2001, at 11:25  PM, pat hayes 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 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.
> > Can you say why you want this?
>
> Sorry for the confusion, I'm having trouble expressing the last
> sentence. How about:
>
> "That is, all parsers should assign the same genids to the same
> anonymous resources in the same document."
>
> Or better, that all parsers generate the same triples for each
> document. This does a number of things:
>
>   - It gets the notion of anonymous resource out of the abstract syntax

This is a con, not a pro.

>   - It makes parsers interchangeable

They would be anyway if they emitted anon resources.

>   - It allows triples to be compared with a simple sort/diff

as per previous message, I think this is a red herring.


-- 
jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44(0)117 9287163 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk
(Things I've found in my attic, #2: A hundredweight of pornography.)

Received on Monday, 25 June 2001 11:23:04 UTC