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

Re: what to call the nodes formerly know as

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 16:40:53 -0400
Message-ID: <3BA902D5.6FDCEBDD@mitre.org>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
CC: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
I *am* getting confused.  This seems to say that we'll talk about
"unlabelled" nodes in the prose, and these nodes will have "bNode
identifiers" in Ntriples documents?  But a "bNode identifier" sounds
like "an identifier that identifies a bNode", but we no longer have
"bNodes"(?)  Also, in concentrating on the graph, we seem to have lost
the connection to resources.  I.e., we now talk about "nodes" with
"labels" rather than "resources" with URIs (identifiers), at least in
the case of resources that have them, and that we want to describe using
RDF.  Is there still an actual connection here (just wondering)?

--Frank


Pat Hayes wrote:
> 
> >I think Frank's right.  From the minutes of last weeks telecon:
> >
> >DECISION: The nodes formerly known as prince nodes are now and forever more
> >known as bNodes.
> 
> Ah, I see. I hadn't realized that this meant in English prose as well
> as in Ntriples syntax. It makes for rather unreadable English.
> However, Ive found that replacing 'anonymous' with 'unlabelled' makes
> the prose read OK, and it seems unobjectionable, since whatever we
> *call* them, they don't have labels, right? (Sorry, I forgot to do
> all the CSS fireworks , and just made the changes.)
> 
> OK, I have now tweaked the prose to make it both readable English and
> hopefully WG-correct.
> 
> BTW, I noticed that I was using 'label' to refer both to node labels
> and to ntriples expressions, which is confusing, so I have changed
> the latter to 'identifier', eg "....a particular uriref or bNode
> identifier in an N-triples document...."  I've also eliminated the
> usage of the term 'qliteral' since its no longer in the Ntriples BNF,
> and erased the last sentence of section 1.4, which didn't really say
> anything.
> 
> If anyone objects, say so before Friday :-)
> 
> Pat
> 
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Sep/0180.html
> >
> >Brian
> >
> >
> >
> >Frank Manola wrote:
> >
> >>I thought we had decided to call them "bNodes", which would be indicated
> >>in Ntriples by "bNode labels";  you sort of used that terminology in
> >>Section 0, but only part of the time :-)
> >>
> >>
> >>Pat Hayes wrote:
> >>
> >>>What do we call these unlabelled thingies in RDF graphs? I gather
> >>>that the use of the term 'anonymous node' is deprecated. I propose to
> >>>call them 'blank nodes' in the MT text, any objections?
> >>>
> >>>Pat
> 
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC                                    (850)434 8903   home
> 40 South Alcaniz St.                    (850)202 4416   office
> Pensacola,  FL 32501                    (850)202 4440   fax
> phayes@ai.uwf.edu
> http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes

-- 
Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-8752
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2001 16:45:55 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:39:47 EDT