W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > August 2001

Re: Is N-Triples Normative? [Was: Re: model theory (W3C publication stuff)]

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 23:57:02 +0100
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
CC: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, Art Barstow <barstow@w3.org>
Message-ID: <15921.999212222@tatooine.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
>>>pat hayes said:
> >On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 07:59:21AM -0400, Art Barstow wrote:
> > >  ACTION 2001-08-17#8 Art Barstow Write strawman WD on test cases (
> > > including n-triples).
> > >
> > > implies the N-Triples doc will be placed in the Test Case WD
> > > (this has not been done yet):
> > >
> > >  [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/08/rdf-test/
> >
> >FYI - [2] now contains N-Triples:
> >
> >  http://www.w3.org/2001/08/rdf-test/#ntriples
> 
> Great, but

but Art is not responsible for the content of the N-Triples
document, which has been sitting around for weeks at the old URI,
linked from our home page http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/

He merged it in, and I have not had the time to update it since I've
been working on the other document.  Moreover I didn't have
permission to write to it till an hour or so a ago.


> 1.  PLEASE let us not call anonnodes 'namedNode'. The whole point of 
> the damn things is that they are nodes that do NOT have a name. This 
> is like calling bald people 'hairy'.

In a previous mail to the list I noted in a reply to Jos:

  > 2. why do we use the term namedNode for a node which is in fact not named?

  It was anonNode - which was probably worse, so I changed it.
  How about princeNode?

  It is just a token in the N-Triples grammar and if it will reduce any
  implied meaning by changing the characters of the token, let's do it.

  -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Aug/0185.html

The rest can wait till later, when I've updated the syntax doc after
the review.

<megasnip/>

Dave
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2001 18:57:06 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:38:50 EDT