- From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
- Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 23:23:29 -0500
- To: "Danny Ayers" <danny@panlanka.net>, "RDF interest group" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Danny Ayers wrote: > > > 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. > What you say is entirely correct (IMHO). When creating RDF triples there is a need to assign node a URI. A URI ought not be always equated with an ID -- an ID is a name, but a URI can also be an address. This discussion all too often conflates names and addresses. For example: the person named "James Smith", the man sitting third from the left in the front row, one is identified by name, the other by address but a URI could be built from either. Jonathan Borden The Open Healthcare Group http://www.openhealth.org
Received on Sunday, 11 March 2001 23:22:19 UTC