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

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

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 25 Mar 2002 09:25:50 -0600
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, Massimo Marchiori <massimo@w3.org>, Lynn Andrea Stein <las@olin.edu>
Message-Id: <1017069951.6766.26.camel@dirk>
On Mon, 2002-03-25 at 03:58, Jeremy Carroll wrote: 
> 
> 
> 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
Eeek! 

> the web fundamentalists will attack ...
Indeed. 

> 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.
I can't see an argument that merits a new URI scheme. 

Implementors could agree on a common spelling that 
*isn't* a URI... something like: 

:ex-uuid:e3l54j63l4ij532l4i5j2l3i4j5 



-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 25 March 2002 10:26:59 EST

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