W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > February 2008

Re: extra comments on test cases

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:28:38 +0000
Message-ID: <a707f8300802110828q6a18d754x1b381dcb15db1747@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: "Ben Adida" <ben@adida.net>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>

Hi Ivan,

Just a quick comment on this...I do like your idea for generating
unique bnodes with the syntax "[_:]". However, as myself and Shane
have evolved CURIEs we've taken that approach that where there is a
precedent, we should follow it. Indeed, the whole point of CURIEs is
to make something that is already being done a little bit easier.

And, since Turtle already uses ":" and "_:" in a specific way, we've
gone for having consistency with it.

So I think we should stick with what we have, with the caveat that if
you think there is a possibility that Turtle might ever go in the
direction you are suggesting, then we could for now say that this
syntax is not allowed, leaving the way open for adding better support
in the future.

My guess is that Turtle doesn't need it, though, since you can simply
use '[' and ']' to get the same effect.

Anyway, I'll leave that to you semweb guys. ;)

Regards,

Mark

On 07/02/2008, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>
>
> Ben Adida wrote:
> >
> >
> > 88: I'm not sure about this one: I thought that about="[_:]" would
> > generate a *new* bnode since it's not named, thus yielding two bnodes
> > here, since it's used twice.
> >
> > <http://www.example.org/#somebody>
> >    foaf:knows [a foaf:Person], [foaf:name "Dan Brickely"] .
> >
> > If you used about="[_:a]" both times, meaning you actually gave it the
> > same bnode identifier, then yes that would mean one bnode in my mind.
> > Thoughts?
> >
>
> Well... that has been a discussion between Mark and me. Mark can make
> the argument better than I can... but I think the argument says that if
> you do not have a local name, then a CURIE means, essentially, the
> prefix part. That is why it is the same BNode.
>
> My argument was a bit different, namely that the CURIE spec is 'mapped'
> against the usage of BNode anyway, in the sense that we give an extra
> interpretation to what _:XXX means (ie, that it is a BNode), so we have
> the freedom to define what _: means.
>
> Either way: this must be decided. So it _is_ a good test:-) because it
> forces us to make a decision in one way or the other:-)
>
> Ivan
>
>
> > -Ben
> >
>
> --
>
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>
>


-- 
  Mark Birbeck

  mark.birbeck@x-port.net | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
  http://www.x-port.net | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com

  x-port.net Ltd. is registered in England and Wales, number 03730711
  The registered office is at:

    2nd Floor
    Titchfield House
    69-85 Tabernacle Street
    London
    EC2A 4RR
Received on Monday, 11 February 2008 16:28:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 11 February 2008 16:28:54 GMT