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

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

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 10:48:04 +0200
To: <nathan@webr3.org>, "'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>
Message-ID: <009501cd658b$38031cc0$a8095640$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
Nathan wrote: 
> 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.

Just as Gregg I'm quite new to this WG and wasn't involved in the discussions. I'm wondering though why the spec (somewhat) encourages to use http(s) IRIs for this even though they are clearly not intended to identify a globally unique and de-referenceable resource.

Perhaps, from an Web architecture point of view, establishing a new URI scheme or at least using something like the uuid scheme would be a better option!? Just my two cents.

Markus Lanthaler
Received on Thursday, 19 July 2012 08:48:55 UTC

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