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

Re: Again: Anonymous Resources

From: Lee Jonas <ljonas@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 11:37:46 -0500
Message-Id: <200103121637.LAA29973@tux.w3.org>
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
[caught in spam trap -rrs]

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 09:40:43 -0500 (EST)
From: "Lee Jonas" <ljonas@acm.org>
To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
Message-ID: <PJEHIGCEAMAHEAPOOFBEKEBCCBAA.ljonas@acm.org>
Subject: Re: Again: Anonymous Resources

Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com> wrote:
>
>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.
>--
>[ Aaron Swartz | me@aaronsw.com | http://www.aaronsw.com ]

I reiterate that if you want to refer to some arbitrary resource from
multiple places (or allow others to do so), you shouldn't make it
anonymous - give it a name.

However, consider the example the RDF M&S spec gives for qualified values.
It describes measurements as the coupling of the unit of measurement with
the quantity via an intermediary resource, e.g. 8-Kg, 128-Mb, 2-meters, etc.
In the words of Brian McBride, it would be draconian to insist every
[intermediary resource] was given a URI.

Regards

Lee
Received on Monday, 12 March 2001 11:37:56 GMT

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