- From: Sergey Melnik <melnik@DB.Stanford.EDU>
- Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 18:34:40 -0800
- To: Jonas Liljegren <jonas@paranormal.o.se>
- CC: RDF Intrest Group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Jonas Liljegren wrote: > > 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. Sorry, I oversaw "(and triples)" in Gabe's statement. Correction: anonymous resources should have relative URIs, triples should have unique URIs. Sergey
Received on Tuesday, 14 December 1999 09:49:53 UTC