- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:40:05 +0100
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 19/04/11 11:59, Ivan Herman wrote: > > On Apr 19, 2011, at 12:15 , Andy Seaborne wrote: > > <snip/> >> >> >> I don't worry about dereferencability so prefer "genid:" > > I think there was a general feeling at the f2f that everybody would > prefer this, except that... per Sandro, it took 10 years to get the > tag: schema through IETF, so having a genid: scheme through IETF > would be a nightmare, let alone that it may not be done by the time > this working group closes:-( (Minor, not urgent) For the genid: URI scheme: 1/ Is it only for bNodes? "genid" reads as if it's for any generated id; there are other schemes already + risk of clashes. 2/ Why not a URN NID? <urn:bnode:...> Is registration easier? Andy > > Ivan > > > >> -- currently provide support for<_:...> to put bNodes in a >> different space to URIs while reusing/abusing the syntax. >> >> Andy >> >> FYI: >> >> Registry for well-known: >> http://www.iana.org/assignments/well-known-uris/well-known-uris.xml >> >> >> Registration list: >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/wellknown-uri-review/current/maillist.html >> >> > >> > > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: > http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 PGP Key: > http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: > http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2011 12:40:38 UTC