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

Re: Resolution of: #rdfms-identity-anon-resources

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 12:18:49 -0500
Message-ID: <3BC87779.C2A0A2FF@w3.org>
To: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Sergey Melnik wrote:
> 
> Pat Hayes wrote:
> >
> > >It looks like it is still the case that RDF/XML syntax can only
> > >represent a subset of valid RDF graphs,
> >
> > But that, I gather, is the case more generally.
> >
> > >in which there are no circles
> > >that contain bNodes only. If so, this limitation needs to be stressed in
> > >the spec(s).
> >
> > Agreed. There should be a whole little essay (in the primer?) about
> > the different notations and the relationships between them.
> >
> > >An exception handling mechanism must be specified as well.
> >
> > Why? Isn't it enough that there should be round-tripping from RDF/XML
> > -> graph -> RDF/XML?
> 
> There should be, but probably won't be

why not? As long as the graph came from an RDF/XML document,
I see no reason why it can't be written back out as one.

> (unless the syntax subgroup would
> attack the issue e.g. by introducing an additional attribute for
> referencing local bNodes). Therefore, as an implementor, I'd like to
> know what to expect when I try to serialize _x --property--> _x.

Such a graph could never come from parsing RDF/XML.

I'd suggest that if somebody built such a graph thru some
API and then asked to serialize it as RDF/XML, you throw
an exception.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Saturday, 13 October 2001 13:18:52 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:41:02 EDT