- From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
- Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 07:43:52 -0600
- To: Stefan Kokkelink <skokkeli@mathematik.uni-osnabrueck.de>
- CC: RDF interest group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <barstow@w3.org>
Stefan Kokkelink <skokkeli@mathematik.uni-osnabrueck.de> wrote: > Yes, but this raises some problems. For example try the > following code in SiRPAC [1]: > > <?xml version="1.0"?> > <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" > xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"> > <rdf:Description> > <dc:type>animal</dc:type> > </rdf:Description> > <rdf:Description about="online:#genid1"> > <dc:type>no, only an anonymous resource</dc:type> > </rdf:Description> > </rdf:RDF> Nope this is a bug, Art -- can you add this to the issues? > I don't think this is a specific problem in SiRPAC. You always have > this problem when trying to calculate a URI for an anonymous > resource. I never said you could calculate the URI for an anonymous resource -- merely that you could! > If we really want that anonymous resources are given URIs by parsers > we need to define a special URI scheme for these (no longer ;-) > 'anonymous' resources and a well-defined algorithm how parsers > should calculate these URIs from the XML serialization. Jon Borden suggested that we use XPointer to point to the element that defined them and use that as the URI. > Perhaps RDFCore should try to clarify things. I think it's on the issues list. > Personally I think it is a bad idea to require everything we want > to decribe with RDF to have a name. (Humans don't do this: we often > decribe things by the properties they have.) That would raise a lot > of problems ... Yes, but the point of the Web is to give these things names! -- [ Aaron Swartz | me@aaronsw.com | http://www.aaronsw.com ]
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2001 08:43:23 UTC