W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > December 1999

Re: Resources and URIs

From: Sergey Melnik <melnik@DB.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 13:47:09 -0800
Message-ID: <384ED1DD.88062F3A@db.stanford.edu>
To: Gabe Beged-Dov <begeddov@jfinity.com>
CC: RDF Interest Group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Gabe Beged-Dov wrote:

> IMO, the  resources  (and triples) that are embedded in a particular model should be
> labeled using fragment identifiers rather than standalone URI. They should be
> "relative" resources  (as in not absolute).  If we can figure out a workable content
> based algorithm then this could be the ID for these relative resources.
> The fragment scheme for rdf would support two types of fragment identifiers for
> resources, those that are explicitly named using rdf:ID and those that are generated.


> The explicitly named embedded resources would have a fragment prefix of
> "rdfpointer:id:" and the anonymous ones would have a fragment prefix of
> "rdfpointer:anon:". You could then have something like:
>  - urn:rdf:model:34d...29                for Sergey's homepage
>  - urn:rdf:model:34d...29#rdfpointer:anon:XYZ           for his vcard voice resource
> (where "XYZ" is the content based ID).
>  - urn:rdf:model:34d...29#rdfpointer:id:Voice            if the vcard resource had
> been labeled with rdf:ID="Voice".

I think that the generated model URI is not a good choice for the base
of the resource URI. The two major objections are: (a) any change of the
model changes the URIs of anonymous resources (b) recursive dependency:
model URI depends on resource URIs and the other way around.

I would just take the source URI of the model as the base. Then, for
explicitly named resources you have the same naming schema:


For anonymous resources you'd get:


where the digest is computed using a content-based algorithm.

Received on Wednesday, 8 December 1999 16:41:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:28 UTC