- From: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
- Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 15:59:24 +0200
- To: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, "Ed Summers" <ehs@pobox.com>
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:19:40 +0200, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote: > Using 'meaningful' labels for blank nodes is kind of cheating, though. Can't imagine why. I believe strongly in ease of authoring, and meaningful names are therefore very useful. > These labels aren't part of the RDF graph itself, so could be eliminated > on transmission. If you were to use _:1, _:2, etc., would your practice > be as attractive? No. That's why I use meaningful names. I care as much about what they get reduced to in the graph as I do about which addresses a variable gets assigned to in a computer program. I once knew a programmer who insisted on using abstract names for his variables on the grounds that you wouldn't get distracted by what the names meant. As you can imagine, his programs were horrible to read. >> I have a nascent proposal to reserve a http scheme to make this easier >> to write: >> >> <span about="pto:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Waste_Land" >> property="dc:creator">T.S. Eliot</span> >> >> but let's not argue about that now. > > That looks nice. If I ever find enough energy, I might gird myself up to fight for the proposal, but for the time being I have resolved to take the coward's route and continue to use foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf, and fight other battles that I think have more chance of being won. Best wishes, Steven
Received on Friday, 3 October 2008 14:01:07 UTC