W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > March 2011

Re: canonical RDF graph representations

From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 18:57:33 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTinXNSDuvhAZLxzj5D30xhDYUr8oM=te1XOfbYqU@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: melvincarvalho@gmail.com, oneingray@gmail.com, ivan@main.uusia.org, semantic-web@w3.org
I'd mostly like an algorithm (officially) endorsed as a quality
assurance of what is required for complete canonicalization.

Serialization in itself may or may not prove useful in the wild, but
an algorithm which ensures comparisons of graphs with a multitude of
bnodes is truly useful (I've needed that many times). And will
continue to need, of course even where I cannot use Python (for
whatever reason).

Best regards,
Niklas



On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider
<pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
> This thrust for a canonical serialization puzzles me.  What problem
> would a canonical serialization solve?
>
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Bell Labs Research
>
>
> From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: canonical RDF graph representations
> Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 07:13:08 -0600
>
>> On 1 March 2011 10:50, Ivan Shmakov <ivan@main.uusia.org> wrote:
>>>        The “The case for generating URIs by hashing RDF content” paper
>>>        [1], dating back to 2002, mentions that “there is no current
>>>        canonical serialization standard for RDF”.  (Then, they suggest
>>>        their own canonical representation.)
>>>
>>>        I wonder, has such a standard been since proposed?
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2002/HPL-2002-216.pdf
>>
>> Yes, it's important to have a standard way canonicalize RDF, or, at
>> least, RDF/XML imho.  It's required for xmlsig, I think.
>>
>> I think there was an issue with bnodes ... maybe it's something we can solve.
>>
>> Maybe we can get this quickly to rec status?
>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> FSF associate member #7257
>>>
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2011 17:58:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:26 UTC