W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2002

RE: comments on syntax wd: bug in graph seriali[zs]ation algo

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 10:54:02 +0100
To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDOEOCCDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
> > DanBri:
> > > I propose section 6 be dropped for now, until this is fixed.
Jeremy:
> > Opposed.
DanBri:
> Ah, we disagree.

Less than we might think.

I agreed with all the facts you laid out; only disagreeing with the action.

A different action could be:
- add some test cases to clarify the difficulty
- indicate that often we have to serialize an "instance of" a graph rather
than the graph itself. (see model theory section 0 for defn of "instance
of")
- add sufficient warning text
- change status to non-normative

Test cases:

error001.nt
_:foo <eg:test> _:foo .

has no corresponding RDF/XML (we already have one of these error001.nt
somewhere).

B:

<eg:sk1> <eg:test> <eg:sk1> .

C:

<eg:sk2> <eg:test> <eg:sk2> .

Then two entailment tests and four non-entailment tests (between the three
graphs above) clarify the relationships between these graphs. By referring
to these test cases in the serialization text the limitations of the method
can be made clear.

> > I think a minor change highlighting that the meaning of the graph has
> > changed in such a serialization may improve the document.
>
> If the meaning changes, it's not a serialization so much as a
> transformation...
>
>

It's a fairly small transformation, and that smallness can be made clear
model theoretically.

Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2002 05:54:06 EDT

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