- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
- Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 14:20:53 +0100
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Cc: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 06:47 PM 6/29/01 -0400, Dan Brickley wrote: >On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, Aaron Swartz wrote: > > > On Thursday, June 28, 2001, at 06:35 AM, Graham Klyne wrote: > > > > > In the current RDF specification (that we are chartered to > > > clarify), is this a purely syntactic issue, or does the "model" > > > also allow for anonymous resources? > > > > I think that's half the battle! My vote is for syntactic. > >My understanding of 'anonymous resource' is that an RDF/XML file mentions, >but does not name by URI, some Web resource. I'm at a loss as to how this >could be merely XML-syntactic: if the information isn't in the XML file, it >isn't going to be accessible to parsers and consequently any RDF "model" >(aka graph... whatever...) generated by the RDF parser is also going to >mention but not name those same RDF resources. I don't think that adding a 'genid' to the model can be said to add any information that is not present in the XML. (The 'genid' is presumed to be chosen so that it cannot clash with any other identifier used for any other purpose.) So, in this sense, an anonymous resource might be claimed to be XML-syntactic: it is the responsibility of the RDF/XML parser to allocate a unique identifier for any resource that is not explicitly named in the XML. I would say that any issue that is dealt with entirely by a parser is, ipso facto, a "merely syntactic" issue. ... (I'm not saying here that this must be the resolution, just trying to point out why I think it might be a resolution.) #g ------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Klyne Baltimore Technologies Strategic Research Content Security Group <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com> <http://www.mimesweeper.com> <http://www.baltimore.com> ------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2001 09:34:42 UTC