- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 12:55:42 -0800
- To: "Aaron Swartz" <aswartz@swartzfam.com>, "Lee Jonas" <lee.jonas@cakehouse.co.uk>, "'Stefan Kokkelink'" <skokkeli@mathematik.uni-osnabrueck.de>, "RDF interest group" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
From: "Aaron Swartz" <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
> Lee, what is the argument against naming every resource?
>
> If the idea of RDF is to let anyone talk about anything anywhere, then
> so-called anonymous resources should be part of this too.
>
> Giving them IDs lets others join in the party, so to speak.
Apologies in advance if this is out of context ... sorry i didnt have time
to read the entire dialogue .. but ..
I don't understand the use of giving IDs to anonomous nodes for use external
to a single communication .. we'll just have more cyber jibberish floating
around. If you want to add information to an anomous node, just say what
qualifies it again... example:
[ hasHomePage http://www.aaronsw.com;
name "Aaron Swartz ";
email mailto:me@aaronsw.com ;
memberOf: SWAG]
I took your signature node and added some new information to it. We don't
need no IDs for this. And if you want to point to that node from somewhere
else that's easy too .. see my sig.
Of course IDs have their use internal to a single communication to remove
redundancies; but between different communications, URIs should be prefered,
or just use qualified anomous nodes as demonstrated above and below.
language: Semenglish
Seth
english:knows [ name "Aaron Swartz "; a Person];
(wants your comments on) http://robustai.net/swag/dictionary.html .
Received on Sunday, 11 March 2001 15:58:44 UTC