Re: ID/IDREF is evil

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@gmail.com> 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.