- From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@a...>
- To: Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@g...>
- Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 14:24:50 +1100
While I do think that every document at every significant granularity should have a persistent universal identifier (PRESTO), and while I think id's are great in an 80/20 YAGNI kind of way, I don't think we should knock id's just because they have document scope: uri fragment # is pretty practical.
For the uses where document scope is not good enough, would getting rid of IDs improve things? It does not seem to follow.
The problem
On 20/02/2014 10:47 AM, "Kurt Cagle" < kurt.cagle@g...> wrote:
Webb,
Thanks for the clarification - this is the first time that I have heard that there was an open world assumption on NIEM XML messages. I understand the need for message id/idref pairs being local, but without the OW assumption, this has always seemed problematic to me.
So, let me ask you a modeling question. You have a weak (i.e., has the potentially to be not immediately dereferenceable) association to an entity that does have a global identifier. Would it be legal to model an explicit named object (such as <ChildRef> for <Child>), with the assumptions that 1) <ChildRef> is a proxy, 2) rdf:about is a valid construct, and 3) child: has a prefix attribute or some other mechanism for resolving the CURIE?
<Person>
<Name>...</Name> <ChildRef rdf:about="child:JaneDoe"/> </Person> I know some people have been working on a NIEM RDF, but the documentation on the ground for it is sparse.
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
|
Cart
