RE: Again: Anonymous Resources

Hi,
I don't know how relevant this is (I'm still on RDF 101) but I believe
anonymity is very important in the Lambda calculus, and I don't see why a
processor of RDF shouldn't use this calculus. Things like lazy evaluation
that this calculus offers could be very useful - I suppose what I'm getting
at is theres no need to make all the connections at the start - the ends of
the graph can be left dangling until you need/want to bind them. Whether or
not there is a parallel between RDF anonymity and the Lambda version I leave
to the gurus - if there is, anonymity should be *very* useful.

Cheers,
Danny.



---
Danny Ayers
http://www.isacat.net

<- -----Original Message-----
<- From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
<- [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Aaron Swartz
<- Sent: 12 March 2001 04:57
<- To: Seth Russell; Lee Jonas; 'Stefan Kokkelink'; RDF interest group
<- Subject: Re: Again: Anonymous Resources
<-
<-
<- Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net> wrote:
<-
<- > I don't understand the use of giving IDs to anonomous nodes
<- for use external
<- > to a single communication .. we'll just have more cyber
<- jibberish floating
<- > around.  If you want to add information to an anomous node,
<- just say what
<- > qualifies it again... example:
<-
<- Because XML is a tree and RDF is a graph and you need some sort of
<- identifier to connect the graph... i.e.:
<-
<- <#Aaron> a wn:Person;
<-   :name "Aaron Swartz";
<-   foaf:mbox <mailto:me@aaronsw.com>.
<-
<- Now I can say:
<-
<-     <http://purl.org/rss/1.0/> dc:contributor <#Aaron> .
<-
<- Now you could flip it around and make the RSS spec as the anonymous node,
<- but the anonymity has to stop somewhere. ID provides a useful
<- way to define
<- terms for "internal use" -- I don't see why we can't use it.
<-
<- For a real-life example, see:
<-
<- http://aaronsw.com/about.xrdf
<-
<- --
<- [ Aaron Swartz | me@aaronsw.com | http://www.aaronsw.com ]
<-

Received on Sunday, 11 March 2001 23:11:08 UTC