- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 00:15:36 +0100
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
On 2011-03-27, at 21:02, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-03-27 at 18:15 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
>>
>>> Well, yeah, I figured the system doing the generation could freely
>> do
>>> either:
>>> http://example.org/=rdfgensym=/668a93dc-e478-4c47-af45-f062b449cd21
>>>
>>> or
>>> tag:example.org,2011:=rdfgensym=/668a93dc-e478-4c47-af45-f062b449cd21
>>>
>>> ... based on whether it wants to support deference or not.
>
> I accidentally left out the other http example, to avoid a 303 when the
> thing is not an information resource:
>
> http://example.org/=rdfgensym=#668a93dc-e478-4c47-af45-f062b449cd21
>
> That makes it harder to give good error information, though.
>
>> That would be fine, I thought you were advocating always using HTTP
>> URIs.
>>
>> Magic URI substrings still don't quite sit well with me though.
>
> I understand. To me, they are a bit like 303s; not a solution I'm
> particularly proud of proposing, but ... it seems like it will work, and
> I can't think of anything better.
Right, that's kind of where I am too.
I guess the only questions in my mind are; do you need to identify skolem constant URIs, and is tag:{something} better than bnode:{something}.
- 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 Sunday, 27 March 2011 23:16:13 UTC