Re: suggestions

[Janne Saarela <Janne.Saarela@sophia.inria.fr>]

Bonjour Dan

> Have made a start on checking over the new stuff. One immediate
> observation: using URI for start and end may confuse people. And
> assumes that we're getting the RDF in each case by de-referencing URI.
> Sometimes we might get it by (for example) calling .toRDF() on some
> arbitrary Java object. So in such cases URIs may confuse. Also
> 'http://www.bized.ac.uk/' is the URI for a Web site. Now we may have two
> chunks of XML/RDF about that resource. Assume these were acquired by
> email (or whatever!). We'd be tempted to use the website URI for the
> start and end identifiers.
> 
> So... should we use object references? 
> start(Object foo), end(Object foo) etc? Or stringified Java object ids
> as URI start("javaobj:". (Object)foo.toString() );

Object references do not appear suitable since they are different
for two String objects created separately but pointing to the
same URI. 

I can see your point... should we just support both URI and object
references? Users can then decide what suits best. This would
effectively require two different types of Interfaces and two
different types of register'ing methods, right?

Janne
--
Janne Saarela           | Visiting scientist
Email: jsaarela@w3.org  | World Wide Web Consortium http://www.w3.org/