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

Re: action: choices for anonymous resources

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 12:00:53 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Cc: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
[Responding as a participant, not as part of my action to summarize...]

I broadly follow most of what you said.  One point of disagreement I have 
is with this:

At 05:54 PM 7/17/01 -0400, you wrote:
>b.  these resources are "anonymous" only in the sense that the writer of 
>the RDF doesn't have to explicitly supply a URI.  However, a genuine URI 
>will be generated for the resource, and once generated this URI will 
>behave like any other URI.  In this case, the M&S should say explicitly 
>that URIs are generated for "anonymous" resources, the graph diagrams 
>should show *generated* URIs, not *no* URIs, for these resources, and the 
>M&S should say how these generated URIs work (e.g., when different parsers 
>operate on the same XML serialization).

You say "the graph diagrams should show *generated* URIs".  I don't believe 
this is an inevitable conclusion.  My view is that the graph diagrams are 
another presentation format on a par with the XML serialization, and, as 
such, omitting the URIs is equally legitimate here.

However, I'll also note that this is a side issue.  The real issue would 
seem to be the N-triple representation, and this approach suggests that 
generated URIs would be needed in the N-triple representation.


Graham Klyne                    Baltimore Technologies
Strategic Research              Content Security Group
<Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>    <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2001 07:02:32 UTC

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