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

RE: SYNTAX: serialization text - with naughty bit

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 17:09:13 -0000
To: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDCELBCCAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
[Brian's message, below, was just to me, I guess he hit the reply button
rather than reply-to-all by mistake, or perhaps this was meant to be an HP
secret; if so, sorry Brian]

The basic serialization is much much better for machine 2 machine
communciations, which long term is the only use of RDF/XML. Basic
serialization is faster and simpler.

One needs to address the bNodes question at some point, then it works. But
since even the abbreviated syntax has the bNodes question it cannot be
avoided.

Jeremy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian McBride [mailto:bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: 11 December 2001 17:00
> To: Jeremy Carroll
>
> At 12:49 05/12/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >The basic approach uses the basic RDF syntax from RDF Model &
> >Syntax([RDFMS]).
> >In this:
> ></p>
> ><ul>
> ><li>
> >All blank nodes are assigned arbitrary URIs.
>
> Whilst I have written code that does this, I don't think this is
> a good idea.
>
> Since we have agreed that bNodes don't have uri's, should the syntax spec
> be suggesting this way of serializing them?
>
> Brian
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2001 12:09:46 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:43:01 EDT