- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 10:36:41 +0100
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- CC: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 28/04/11 10:30, Dan Brickley wrote: > On 28 April 2011 10:36, Andy Seaborne<andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> wrote: >> >> >> On 27/04/11 22:20, Dan Brickley wrote: > >>> Genid +1 >>> Bnode -1 >>> Skolem -1 >> >> I think "genid" is too generic -- "id generation" and URIs from ids, happens >> in other situations like keys in data. > > Who is the audience? We're not branding a company or product here, so > usual discussion of messaging and ambiguity might not hold. Data publishers. Using a generic name might imply it can be used for other generated ids, which makes the reversibility suspect. Andy > The point of the 'wellknown' thing is that the meaning isn't obvious > from reading the word we choose, but can be well documented. So I > don't mind 'genid'. Anything with 'bnode' is a bit weird since these > will be used in URIs. And as others have mentioned, Skolem is by far > the most interesting word (though I fear what we'll do to it's > googlability...). > >> A name that is indicates to URI-izing bNodes is my preference. > > 'xbnode'? Google says it's only been used ~300 times... > > Dan > >> Andy >> >>> >>> Dan >>> >> >>
Received on Thursday, 28 April 2011 09:37:12 UTC