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

Re: extra comments on test cases

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:41:11 +0100
Message-ID: <47B15BA7.8080500@w3.org>
To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
CC: ben@adida.net, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Mark:

In

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Feb/0025.html

Ben 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?
]]]

Which shows that there is _no_ unanimity of opinion in the group on the 
interpretation of [_:] (I merely reacted on that mail). Ie, the group 
has to give its amen to what you proposed (note that the test cases I 
submitted went along your interpretation so do not argue with me:-)

Ivan

Mark Birbeck wrote:
> Hi Ivan,
> 
> Mmm...I'm not sure what the amen is to, though.
> 
> We've never had support for the dynamic generation of bnode values
> using one and the same CURIE--one CURIE always generates the same
> bnode. Of course, I agree that you proposed such a thing as a
> desirable feature, and I can see from Ben's email that he thinks that
> this feature is already here. But I'm afraid that fact remains that it
> is not in the spec, and never has been.
> 
> So, I'm not sure what vote you are proposing. It seems to me that the
> vote would be around a _new_ idea, which (a) I'm reluctant to
> encourage since it opens up a whole new debate, and (b) the idea
> doesn't seem to have a champion, anyway!
> 
> I'll therefore leave it for now, that there is nothing to vote on, but
> of course if someone discovers otherwise, we can look at this again.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mark
> 
> On 11/02/2008, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>> Mark,
>>
>> as I said before, I can live with that; this is what my submitted tests (and my implementation) does. I do not consider this issue as major. But you have to
>> get an amen from the group: I was merely answering to Ben's mail!
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>> ------- Original message -------
>> From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
>> Cc: ben@adida.net, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
>> Sent: 11.2.'08,  16:28
>>
>>> 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
>>
> 
> 

-- 

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 Tuesday, 12 February 2008 08:41:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 12 February 2008 08:41:33 GMT