W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > July 2012

Re: Skolemization .well-known prefix: genid --> bnode or blanknode

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 04:07:28 +0100
Message-ID: <500779F0.3010201@webr3.org>
To: Gavin Carothers <gavin@carothers.name>
CC: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, public-rdf-comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Gavin Carothers wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:
>> On Jul 18, 2012, at 11:01 AM, David Booth wrote:
>> Well, I wasn't a WG member when this was decided, but I did see it go by. IMO, the term "gemid" means nothing. To me, it says just "generated identifier", and nothing that would indicate that it denotes an unnamed resource (or existential identifier). My preference would be for something more like http://example.com/.well-known/anonid/d26a2d0e98334696f4ad70a677abc1f6, which provides a better linguistic clue as to what the IRI is intended to represent.
> 
> http://example.com/.well-known/existential/blahblah or perhaps
> http://example.com/.well-known/∃/blahblah (lets break some bad IRI
> implementations ;) )
> 
> Only half kidding. The name for the name for something that is
> explicitly not a name or denotation is always going to be funky.

"funky" is one way of putting it - weird thing is, outside of all the 
conversations about skolemization in the RDF WG, this seems like a 
ridiculously stupid idea that breaks about every principal of logic and 
web architecture and common sense.

But then somehow all these clever people talking about it makes it seem 
rationale. I think.
Received on Thursday, 19 July 2012 03:08:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:59:30 UTC