- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 17:47:59 +0100
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 2011-04-28, at 10:36, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > 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. Equally, it could be intended though. There's a risk that someone might see the .well-known/genid/ pattern in published URIs, and copy it without realising the full consequences, but I don't see how calling it /Skolem/, or /xbnode/, or anything else makes that any less likely. - 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 Thursday, 28 April 2011 16:48:33 UTC