W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > August 2001

anonymous nodes

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 06:48:22 -0700
Message-ID: <004001c124c7$cae6cde0$b17ba8c0@c1457248a.sttls1.wa.home.com>
To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, <sean@mysterylights.com>, <scranefield@infoscience.otago.ac.nz>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>

> Well, I'm probably going to get grilled for this comment, but personally
> I don't like anonymous nodes. After all, just what *is* an anonymous
> node. Every application that I've seen that uses them has had to give
> them some form of identity, and yet that identity is system dependent.

Yep, any implemented system that has nodes must have some way to identify
them internally (whether they are termed anonymous or not).  Point is that
the anonymous ones just can't be accessed by name from outside that system.
The only way to address an anonymous node from outside the implemented
system is by criteria ... for example I'm talking about the nodes in your
system for which [foo bloop; bar goop] and of those nodes I wish to say [gar
poop] ... oh ... and I will be expecting that you have only one such node.

> IMO, anonymous nodes were a hack to allow collection structures as

Well maybe that is what some people use them for.   The primary reason,
imho, is that we got so many nodes we can't name them all ....  tis
impossible .... twill always be impossible.   But that doesn't mean that we
can't start talking about things which are impossible to name or for which
(in a distributed system) it is infeasible to name.   So next time you go to
the beech select the first grain of sand that is touched by your left pinkie
and send it to me ...

.... along with a dollar bill of course.

Seth Russell
Received on Tuesday, 14 August 2001 09:54:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:37 UTC