- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:07:45 +0100
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 2011-04-20, at 08:43, Andy Seaborne wrote: 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. Strong -1 - these are not bNodes, but something else, derived from bNodes. Note that 4store uses <bnode:...>, and I'm still anti. - Steve -- Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK +44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Wednesday, 20 April 2011 15:08:17 UTC