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

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

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:19:17 +0100
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
cc: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <23284.1003231157@tatooine.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
>>>Dan Connolly said:
> Dave, would you please add such a note to the syntax spec?
> I think PatH said he'd say something to that effect in the
> model theory document. Hmm.. suggested wording...
> 
> 	Note that not all RDF graphs can be serialized
> 	in RDF's XML syntax. For example, graphs with
> 	cycles composed of bNodes[sic], or property
> 	names that don't end in XML name characters.
> 
> Maybe there's already one in the syntax draft?
> I don't see it in
>   http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/
> as of this writing (I'd cite by CVS $Date$ or HTTP
> last modified, but I can't find either of those).

I've added CVS $Revision:$

> It seems most closely related to this issue...
>   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-syntax-incomplete
> 
> Odd. that's not in our enumeration of syntax issues...
>   09 Oct 2001
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0119.html
> 
> Maybe it's too new?

I've added this issue as a clear syntax one and put these words in:

   Not all RDF graphs can be serialized in RDF's XML syntax. For
   example, graphs with cycles composed of nodes with no URIs (blank
   nodes in the graph), or property names that don't end in XML name
   characters.  This is a known limitation of this syntax that can
   only be fully addressed by changes to it or a totally new syntax.

This is in CVS version 1.57 onwards

> Hmm... the syntax spec doesn't seem to discuss serializing
> graphs at all... only parsing them. Dave, have you thought
> about a section to explain serializing? Seems quite useful
> for implementors... and even users: "don't expect your RDF
> to get serialized exactly the way it was parsed; expect
> the meaning to be the same, but not the syntactic details."

I had thought about it; I've put a section with notes to remind me
See 
  http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Serialising

in CVS version 1.58 or later

> > After all, people want (and will try) to
> > exchange arbitrary graphs. Do you think it is off charter to include a
> > new attribute like "localID" in the RDF/XML syntax to make it as
> > powerful as the underlying graph model?
> 
> Yes, I'm afraid it is unreasonable to add such a syntax feature
> and call it a clarification of RDF 1.0.
> 
> It's a great idea to go along with rdf:resourceQ or whatever,
> i.e. an attribute just like rdf:resource and rdf:about except
> that it uses QNames.

I agree, in a future syntax, not a reworking of 1.0.

Dave
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2001 07:19:19 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:41:03 EDT