W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > March 2002

RE: motivation for bNodes/existentials in RDF; note for parsers

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@HPLB.HPL.HP.COM>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 09:58:09 -0000
To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: "RDF Core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, "Massimo Marchiori" <massimo@w3.org>, "Lynn Andrea Stein" <las@olin.edu>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDKEHOCDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>


I was thinking along these lines.

I don't think we need a special URI scheme more a general purpose pronominal
scheme.

Look at the eid scheme


http://www-old.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/uri/draft-finseth-url-00.txt


a different name might be an it: or this: or that: scheme where rather than
talking about an application context (as in eid) we just talk about a
context.

I don't see any reason not to make such a scheme hierarchical.

The definition is something like:

[[
  it:hier_part

where the resource referred to is determined by contextual information.
e.g. application context, enclosing RDF/XML document

]]

it does rather take on the "one URI, one resource" dogma ...

the web fundamentalists will attack ...
it's worth finding out how rough a ride eid had.

Jeremy

PS: As an implementator I am certainly game for implementing something along
these lines, and I think a URI scheme is better than extensions of a
well-known URI.




> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Patrick Stickler
> Sent: 25 March 2002 08:10
> To: Dan Connolly; Pat Hayes
> Cc: RDF Core; Massimo Marchiori; Lynn Andrea Stein
> Subject: Re: motivation for bNodes/existentials in RDF; note for parsers
>
>
> On 2002-03-23 4:58, "ext Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org> wrote:
>
> > Dave, I wonder if the syntax spec should
> > say something about "in the past, RDF
> > parsers have parsed anonymous nodes
> > by generating arbitrary URIs; don't do that;
> > make sure the parser client can tell the
> > URI references from the anonymous nodes".
>
> Would it be useful to have a standardized means of generating
> URIs for anonymous nodes such that
>
> a) applications can tell a node is anonymous
> b) graph merges do not result in collisions
>
> E.g., define a URI scheme that is analogous to uuid: but
> call it e.g. anon:
>
>    anon:4ba893b9-3fc7-11d6-9765-0003931df47c
>
> Only anonymous nodes would be labled with anon: URIs (if
> someone uses an anon: URI to denote something other than
> an anonymous node, they get what they deserve).
>
> Graphs with such anonymous node URIs can be merged with
> wanton abandon as they will not collide, since they are
> based on UUIDs.
>
> Eh?
>
> Patrick
>
> --
>
> Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
> Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
> Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 25 March 2002 05:00:16 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:46:22 EDT