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

Re: motivation for bNodes/existentials in RDF; note for parsers

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 15:06:53 -0500 (EST)
To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, Massimo Marchiori <massimo@w3.org>, Lynn Andrea Stein <las@olin.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0203241459280.6908-100000@tux.w3.org>
On Sun, 24 Mar 2002, Dave Beckett wrote:

> >>>Dan Connolly said:
> > Pat, Dave,
> <snip />
> > Dave, I wonder if the syntax spec should
> > say something about "in the past, RDF
> > parsers have parsed anonymous nodes
> > by generating arbitrary URIs; don't do that;
> > make sure the parser client can tell the
> > URI references from the anonymous nodes".
> Good idea; I'll that near in section on identifiers, since I'm
> going to expand that to bullets anyway.  Coming soon somewhere in:
>   http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Identifiers

This was pretty much the same worry as the one I raised this morning about
the serialization text (though going in the opposite direction):

The basic approach uses the basic RDF syntax from [RDF-MS].
 *  All blank nodes are assigned arbitrary URIs.

BTW I wrote a reply to your msg earlier but crashed my ssh session and
lost it. Short version: none of my comments are urgent enough to delay
publication. Consider them early feedback on the next WD. In particular, I
withdraw my comment re rdf:Description (though I'll continue to not use it

Received on Sunday, 24 March 2002 15:06:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:56 UTC