- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 12:18:49 -0500
- 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 UTC