- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 08:43:52 +0100
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 19/04/11 13:50, Ivan Herman wrote: > > On Apr 19, 2011, at 14:40 , Andy Seaborne wrote: > >> >> >> 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? > > yes > >> "genid" reads as if it's for any generated id; there are other schemes already + risk of clashes. In that case, I suggest that "bnode" is better than "genid" because generated ids can occur for other reasons, and potentially confusing for RDF, IRI generation from some database key. This is specifically for bNodes so let's make it clear. Andy
Received on Wednesday, 20 April 2011 07:44:17 UTC