W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2001

RE: regarding rdfms-identity-anon-resources

From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:38:14 -0500
To: "Gabe Beged-Dov" <begeddov@jfinity.com>
Cc: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <006201c0a991$445bc1b0$0201a8c0@ne.mediaone.net>
Gabe Beged-Dov wrote:

>
> IMHO, you are conflating XML fragment identification with anon
> resource identification.

	??? I'm not trying to identify XML fragments, rather _use_ XML fragments to
identify.

> There are many ways to signal via a fragment
> identifier that a particular URIref is a special resource. Using
> XPointer child sequence is an interesting one but is indirect and
> requires that these kinds of syntactic shorthands be only used for
> anon resource labeling.

	I put forth that all proper labelling of an anonymous resource is
indirect -- a direct identification is a name. Any resource might be
anonymous to any particular individual or system, it is all a matter of
perspective. So yes one may refer to a 'known' resource using an address
rather than a name. This is no problem.

>
> If you go down this path, I think you might as well use an explicit
> fragment scheme like x-anon or something else. This also doesn't
> address round tripping. I.e. how do you regenerate an XML document
> where the XPointer shorthand (which isn't a valid XML Name it seems)
> is valid?

	RDF in general does not address roundtripping of XML documents, to do so
requires information not stored within the set of triples resulting from
parsing an XML document. In general complete roundtripping requires an XML
grove which is also generally a DLG but contains lots of other information
beyond what is contained in an RDF 'model'.

	If roundtripping of XML documents is identified as an RDF goal then we can
have a different discussion.

	The issue of child seqs being invalid XML names is by design! If the
resource _had_ a valid XML name it wouldn't be anonymous would it?

-Jonathan
>
Received on Saturday, 10 March 2001 13:37:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:27 GMT