W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re: other rdf:nodeID name thoughts

From: Bill Kearney <wkearney99@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 15:00:13 -0500
To: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OE12z5b6KZmcK8r6beU000000c2@hotmail.com>

Is this any more complicated that using the word 'resource'?

I'd have to think that opening the door into graph theory by using the nodeID
name would be a *good* thing.  If just for the purpose of letting folks know
there's a larger set of concepts out there that might be worth investigating.
We could just as easily call the thing rdf:hamsandwich.  But we're not trying to
get a deli schema going so the use of that wording wouldn't be all that helpful.

Not getting into graph theory is one thing.  Taking steps to blindly lead people
away from it is another entirely.  Once people grasp what the terms mean it's
not really all that important what they're called.

I dislike 'local' in that it raises questions like server/client-side localness,
binding and what not.  Likewise for 'internal'.

-Bill Kearney

----- Original Message -----
From: "Garret Wilson" <garret@globalmentor.com>
To: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 2:37 PM
Subject: other rdf:nodeID name thoughts

> I'm thinking of specifications built on top of RDF that may try to hide
> technical details of RDF from the user. rdf:about and rdf:reference did
> that somewhat by talking about relationships between *resources*, but
> the name "rdf:nodeID" presupposes a knowledge of some graphical
> representation of RDF---relationships between nodes in a graph.
> Has anyone proposed other names for rdf:nodeID just to be user-friendly,
> such as one of the following?
> rdf:localID
> rdf:internalID
> rdf:tempID
> The only one I really like is rdf:localID. The rest don't seem to work,
> but then rdf:nodeID doesn't seem quite right, either.
Received on Sunday, 19 January 2003 15:00:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:19 UTC