- From: Jonas Liljegren <jonas@paranormal.o.se>
- Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 20:17:33 +0100
- To: Sergey Melnik <melnik@DB.Stanford.EDU>, RDF Intrest Group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Sergey Melnik wrote: > > 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. I do not agree that triples in a model should be labled using fragment identifiers rather than standalone URI. a) That would mean that two identical triples from diffrent models would have diffrent URIs. b) It would also mean that the same triple would get another URI then the model change. > 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. This would be ok for resources, but not for statements. But what is the source URI? Should we think about mirrors of the content? Are you differentiating between the source URL of the model and its URI? Or would the model URI be a combination of the URL and a MD5 digest? More about differentiating about URIs and URLs: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/1999Dec/0067.html -- / Jonas - http://paranormal.o.se/perl/proj/rdf/schema_editor/
Received on Sunday, 12 December 1999 14:08:10 UTC