- From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 10:17:42 +0100 (BST)
- To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Aaron Swartz wrote: > On Tuesday, June 26, 2001, at 04:06 AM, Jan Grant wrote: > > >>> Not really, no. You _still_ are going to need anonymous resource > >>> resolution/unification in there somewhere: for example, if you decide > >>> that two documents (or the same documentat two different URLs) are > >>> talking about the same things. > >> Sure, of course you are. I just want to move this out of the > >> core level to something higher. This simplifies the core for > >> those who don't need these things, and leaves it available for > >> those who do. > > Just don't use anon resources if you don't want them. > > Err, I don't follow. If I'm writing an application that accepts > arbitrary RDF (which I am), I still need to deal with them > somehow as long as they are in the abstract syntax. With my > proposal, I could just ignore their anonymity if I wanted. Avoiding an onerous implementation burden by winnowing the spec is not something we get the opportunity to do very often :-) I feel much the same way about the potential of stating equivalence between two resources being written in to a level I can't just ignore. Handling anonymous resources is tricky, but it's not too tricky. Some brief notes about it here: http://ioctl.org/rdf/discuss/anonymous ...although these are a bit old now, and deal with the impact on an imperative API (as opposed, ferinstance, to anything prolog-based) jan -- 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 Prolog in JavaScript: http://tribble.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/~cmjg/logic/prolog-latest
Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2001 05:19:53 UTC