W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > July 2001

Re: Proposal: #rdfms-identity-anon-resources

From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 10:36:54 +0100 (BST)
To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
cc: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>, RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.31.0107121034140.1288-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, Aaron Swartz wrote:

> On Wednesday, July 11, 2001, at 12:27  PM, Graham Klyne wrote:
> >   1. Are anonymous resources allowed in the abstract graph syntax?
> Not explicitly... I mean, I'm fine with triples stating
> anonymity, but not with a special type of "anonymous" resource.
> > No specific mechanism for generating such URIs is mandated, but
> > the following options might be considered:
> This is the problem I have. I think all parsers should spit out
> equivalent genids for the same document -- the spec should
> mandate the genid to use.

No! because multiple XML documents represent the same RDF; you'd get
different URIs generated for "equivalent" anonymous nodes.

If you're going to go down this route, the URIs should be UUIDs of some

As it is, I'm opposed to dropping them from the model


PS. unfortunatly, I'm in bed with something like the 'flu at the moment
so an eloquent defence will have to wait until I feel better :-/

jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44(0)117 9287163 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk
Lambda calculus? I hardly know 'er!
Received on Thursday, 12 July 2001 05:38:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:02 UTC