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

Re: Again: Anonymous Resources

From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 07:43:52 -0600
To: Stefan Kokkelink <skokkeli@mathematik.uni-osnabrueck.de>
CC: RDF interest group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <barstow@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B6CCE8B7.24749%aswartz@swartzfam.com>
Stefan Kokkelink <skokkeli@mathematik.uni-osnabrueck.de> wrote:

> Yes, but this raises some problems. For example try the
> following code in SiRPAC [1]:
> 
> <?xml version="1.0"?>
> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
> xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
> <rdf:Description>
> <dc:type>animal</dc:type>
> </rdf:Description>
> <rdf:Description about="online:#genid1">
> <dc:type>no, only an anonymous resource</dc:type>
> </rdf:Description>
> </rdf:RDF>

Nope this is a bug, Art -- can you add this to the issues?

> I don't think this is a specific problem in SiRPAC. You always have
> this problem when trying to calculate a URI for an anonymous
> resource.

I never said you could calculate the URI for an anonymous resource -- merely
that you could!

> If we really want that anonymous resources are given URIs by parsers
> we need to define a special URI scheme for these (no longer ;-)
> 'anonymous' resources and a well-defined algorithm how parsers
> should calculate these URIs from the XML serialization.

Jon Borden suggested that we use XPointer to point to the element that
defined them and use that as the URI.

> Perhaps RDFCore should try to clarify things.

I think it's on the issues list.

> Personally I think it is a bad idea to require everything we want
> to decribe with RDF to have a name. (Humans don't do this: we often
> decribe things by the properties they have.) That would raise a lot
> of problems ...

Yes, but the point of the Web is to give these things names!

-- 
[ Aaron Swartz | me@aaronsw.com | http://www.aaronsw.com ]
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2001 08:43:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:48 GMT