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

Re: extra comments on test cases

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 10:32:33 -0600
Message-ID: <47B078A1.2030109@aptest.com>
To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
CC: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>

I concur, FWIW.

Mark Birbeck wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>>     
>
>
>   
Received on Monday, 11 February 2008 16:32:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 11 February 2008 16:32:52 GMT