- From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 16:22:32 +0100 (BST)
- To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- cc: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
OOps, there's a PS here. On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Aaron Swartz wrote: > On Saturday, June 23, 2001, at 11:25 PM, pat hayes 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 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. > > Can you say why you want this? > > Sorry for the confusion, I'm having trouble expressing the last > sentence. How about: > > "That is, all parsers should assign the same genids to the same > anonymous resources in the same document." > > Or better, that all parsers generate the same triples for each > document. This does a number of things: > > - It gets the notion of anonymous resource out of the abstract syntax This is a con, not a pro. > - It makes parsers interchangeable They would be anyway if they emitted anon resources. > - It allows triples to be compared with a simple sort/diff as per previous message, I think this is a red herring. -- 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 (Things I've found in my attic, #2: A hundredweight of pornography.)
Received on Monday, 25 June 2001 11:23:04 UTC