- From: Sergey Melnik <melnik@DB.Stanford.EDU>
- Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 13:47:09 -0800
- To: Gabe Beged-Dov <begeddov@jfinity.com>
- CC: RDF Interest Group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Gabe Beged-Dov wrote: > IMO, the resources (and triples) that are embedded in a particular model should be > labeled using fragment identifiers rather than standalone URI. They should be > "relative" resources (as in not absolute). If we can figure out a workable content > based algorithm then this could be the ID for these relative resources. > The fragment scheme for rdf would support two types of fragment identifiers for > resources, those that are explicitly named using rdf:ID and those that are generated. Agreed. > The explicitly named embedded resources would have a fragment prefix of > "rdfpointer:id:" and the anonymous ones would have a fragment prefix of > "rdfpointer:anon:". You could then have something like: > > - urn:rdf:model:34d...29 for Sergey's homepage > > - urn:rdf:model:34d...29#rdfpointer:anon:XYZ for his vcard voice resource > (where "XYZ" is the content based ID). > > - urn:rdf:model:34d...29#rdfpointer:id:Voice if the vcard resource had > been labeled with rdf:ID="Voice". I think that the generated model URI is not a good choice for the base of the resource URI. The two major objections are: (a) any change of the model changes the URIs of anonymous resources (b) recursive dependency: model URI depends on resource URIs and the other way around. I would just take the source URI of the model as the base. Then, for explicitly named resources you have the same naming schema: http://../doc.rdf#Voice For anonymous resources you'd get: http://../doc.rdf#39efa..09c where the digest is computed using a content-based algorithm. Sergey
Received on Wednesday, 8 December 1999 16:41:49 UTC