- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@HPLB.HPL.HP.COM>
- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 09:58:09 -0000
- To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: "RDF Core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, "Massimo Marchiori" <massimo@w3.org>, "Lynn Andrea Stein" <las@olin.edu>
I was thinking along these lines. I don't think we need a special URI scheme more a general purpose pronominal scheme. Look at the eid scheme http://www-old.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/uri/draft-finseth-url-00.txt a different name might be an it: or this: or that: scheme where rather than talking about an application context (as in eid) we just talk about a context. I don't see any reason not to make such a scheme hierarchical. The definition is something like: [[ it:hier_part where the resource referred to is determined by contextual information. e.g. application context, enclosing RDF/XML document ]] it does rather take on the "one URI, one resource" dogma ... the web fundamentalists will attack ... it's worth finding out how rough a ride eid had. Jeremy PS: As an implementator I am certainly game for implementing something along these lines, and I think a URI scheme is better than extensions of a well-known URI. > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Patrick Stickler > Sent: 25 March 2002 08:10 > To: Dan Connolly; Pat Hayes > Cc: RDF Core; Massimo Marchiori; Lynn Andrea Stein > Subject: Re: motivation for bNodes/existentials in RDF; note for parsers > > > On 2002-03-23 4:58, "ext Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org> wrote: > > > Dave, I wonder if the syntax spec should > > say something about "in the past, RDF > > parsers have parsed anonymous nodes > > by generating arbitrary URIs; don't do that; > > make sure the parser client can tell the > > URI references from the anonymous nodes". > > Would it be useful to have a standardized means of generating > URIs for anonymous nodes such that > > a) applications can tell a node is anonymous > b) graph merges do not result in collisions > > E.g., define a URI scheme that is analogous to uuid: but > call it e.g. anon: > > anon:4ba893b9-3fc7-11d6-9765-0003931df47c > > Only anonymous nodes would be labled with anon: URIs (if > someone uses an anon: URI to denote something other than > an anonymous node, they get what they deserve). > > Graphs with such anonymous node URIs can be merged with > wanton abandon as they will not collide, since they are > based on UUIDs. > > Eh? > > Patrick > > -- > > Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453 > Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409 > Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com > > >
Received on Monday, 25 March 2002 05:00:16 UTC