- From: Christopher Gutteridge <totl@soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 11:11:34 +0000
- To: Laura Morales <lauretas@mail.com>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
This is dangerous as 2 datasets are very likely to use the same URI to mean something different. RDF already has the concept of blank nodes, eg _:foo, _:bar which only exist within the current dataset and are explicitly not used for linking. These cause a lot of headaches and I try to avoid them in all my systems. You could do worse than generate UUID (numbers big enough to statistically never ever clash if you pick them randomly), and just use <urn:uuid:7673868d-231e-490d-9c4f-19288e7e668f> as URIs. This is ugly but only us nerds should ever see them. On 19/11/2018 10:55, Laura Morales wrote: > Full original thread here: https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.w3.org%2FArchives%2FPublic%2Furi%2F2018Nov%2F0000.html&data=01%7C01%7Ctotl%40soton.ac.uk%7C49e1846f6579438de24d08d64e0e11db%7C4a5378f929f44d3ebe89669d03ada9d8%7C1&sdata=c%2FbGGSAnTM5dv%2BF0E9UnookUETKwFMusjxDFuF0V4%2FQ%3D&reserved=0 > > Since I was asked to redirect my request to the "RDF community" I'm posting here for comments, because I don't know if there is any official place to ask to. > -- Christopher Gutteridge <totl@soton.ac.uk> You should read our team blog at http://blog.soton.ac.uk/webteam/
Received on Monday, 19 November 2018 11:11:59 UTC