- From: Gabe Beged-Dov <begeddov@jfinity.com>
- Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 13:25:31 -0800
- To: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
- CC: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Jonathan Borden wrote: > > Gabe Beged-Dov wrote: > > There are many ways to signal via a fragment > > identifier that a particular URIref is a special resource. Using > > XPointer child sequence is an interesting one but is indirect and > > requires that these kinds of syntactic shorthands be only used for > > anon resource labeling. > > I put forth that all proper labelling of an anonymous resource is > indirect -- a direct identification is a name. Any resource might be > anonymous to any particular individual or system, it is all a matter of > perspective. So yes one may refer to a 'known' resource using an address > rather than a name. This is no problem. I am trying to keep my understanding of this issue scoped to the need to signal that an anonymous resource was described in the RDF/XML document. This can either be done inband via the URIref that is generated for the resource or out of band using many possible book-keeping approaches. You are proposing that the use of a childseq as the fragment identifier portion of the URI by used to signal this fact. I would prefer to either use a more explicit signalling mechanism or do it out-of-band. The out-of-band might either be some more triples that tracked this metadata or really out of band in some implementation dependant representation. > > If you go down this path, I think you might as well use an explicit > > fragment scheme like x-anon or something else. This also doesn't > > address round tripping. I.e. how do you regenerate an XML document > > where the XPointer shorthand (which isn't a valid XML Name it seems) > > is valid? > > RDF in general does not address roundtripping of XML documents, to do so > requires information not stored within the set of triples resulting from > parsing an XML document. In general complete roundtripping requires an XML > grove which is also generally a DLG but contains lots of other information > beyond what is contained in an RDF 'model'. > > If roundtripping of XML documents is identified as an RDF goal then we can > have a different discussion. I have always felt that round-tripping should be not only a goal but a requirement. It really helps to ground many discussions. > The issue of child seqs being invalid XML names is by design! If the > resource _had_ a valid XML name it wouldn't be anonymous would it? If anonymity was a first class concept, ala a special variable type, then you wouldn't have to conflate lack of a name with it being anonymous. > -Jonathan Gabe -- --------------------------- http://www.jfinity.com/gabe
Received on Saturday, 10 March 2001 15:28:40 UTC