- From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 19:23:21 -0500
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Cc: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>, <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>, <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Friday, June 15, 2001, at 07:13 PM, Dan Brickley wrote: >>> I don't agree that anonymous nodes should be part of the abstract >>> syntax, and would suggest to consider this issue when cleaning up the >>> model. > > I disagree: it is critically important to distinguish between > well known, > public URI names for things and ad-hoc generated placeholder > IDs that have > been dreamt up by an RDF/XML parser. Unless the abstract syntax (or > whatever we call it) maintains that distinction, we risk getting into a > terrible muddle. OK, fine, but do it in a way so that *I* can still come up with ad-hoc names. IOW, use a forSome triple or something to specify this effect -- don't count on a side-effect of the current language to denote this! >> I tend to agree with this position. However, I would take it one >> step further -- I believe that these "uniquely generated >> resources" should have consistent, repeatably generated URIs. >> That is, all parsers should assign the same genid to the same >> resource. > > do you really mean this last claim? > I suspect you meant that all parsers should assign a predictable genid > given a common RDF/XML description mentioning a resource. 'all parsers > should assign the same genid to the same resource' would be > magic, since > many times parsers won't have that information accessible. Yes, that's what I meant. -- [ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ]
Received on Friday, 15 June 2001 20:23:34 UTC