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

Re: does RDF require understanding all 82 URI schemes?

From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 21:32:21 -0600
To: David Megginson <david@megginson.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B6AE06E5.2274C%aswartz@swartzfam.com>
David Megginson <david@megginson.com> wrote:

>> <#x>
>> daml:equivalentTo
>> http://www.megginson.com/battles.rdf#jutland
> I already answered this one privately -- this solution won't scale,
> because it requires you to retrieve a resource to find the aliased
> identifier. 

How so? Could you explain? Here's the scenario I see:

I describe some generic concept, like:


Bob wants to describe it too, knows your URI, but doesn't want to use it. So
in his description he describes:


and says it's equivalent to mine. When my RDF parser sees my concept, it
enters it into its database. When it sees Bob's concept, it realizes it's
the same as mine and stores them in the same (or a nearby) node. If it
doesn't know about my concept, then it just creates a new node for Bob's and
keeps in mind the fact that if it ever runs into my identifier, it'll know
that it should connect it with what Bob says. Where's the network access?

> If you're dealing with more than a few objects, you'll
> end up with an exponential explosion of network access.  That's not to
> say that an equivalent-to property isn't a good idea; only that it's
> not a practical alternative to sharing the same identifier.

I don't see this.

[ Aaron Swartz | me@aaronsw.com | http://www.aaronsw.com ]
Received on Monday, 12 February 2001 22:32:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:34 UTC