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

Re: Primer synch with other documents

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 10:50:15 +0000
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <22437.1036493415@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

>>>Jeremy Carroll said:
> Going on-list ....
> Dave:
> > I'd stick it in 2.3.2 since it is there where you first mention
> > "Blank".   Identification of distinct but blank nodes deserves to go
> > here.  Introducing a term for syntax-specific identifiers for such
> > blank nodes could be in another doc, but I expect we all want to talk
> > about them since otherwise we say things like:
> >   nodes are [URI refs] or [Literals] or <nothing to point at here>
> >
> > I can live with defining the term blank node identifiers per-syntax;
> > it'll just have to be done twice for rdf/xml and n-triples, and again
> > in other docs?
> I am looking at this para and the latest editors version of concepts:
> http://sealpc09.cnuce.cnr.it/jeremy/RDF-concepts/2002-11-05/rdf-concepts.html
> (I currently have the lock).
> Graham defines "local node identifier" (I prefer "blank node identifier", I
> will chat with him as to why the change).


> I carefully avoid a constructive definition of blank node, a definition just
> gets in the way.
> [[
> The blank nodes of an RDF graph are those nodes that are not RDF literals or
> RDF URI References.
> ]]
> is what I say; so that as far as the abstract syntax is concerned my mum can
> be a subject or an object of a triple in a graph. Then she is a node in the
> graph, and by virtue of not being a literal or a URIref she is a blank node.
> All that means is that her internal structure is not relevant to RDF.

I'm not so worried about that but there is one critical fix I require:


reference and cite the correct corresponding syntax WD section:

 [[check this]]

The warning in red may be removed, since that is in the cited
section, and expanded in the latest draft.

This link was actually in published in the WD last time even though I
asked it to be removed last time.


Changed I'd like to see, not requirements:

I'd suggest removing the RDFS namespace [[where??]], the RDF vocab
document serves as that definition.

I've also just noticed (was 3.4) now 4.1 defining an rdf triple
has changed terminology again:

An RDF triple describes an arc in an RDF graph. It contains three components:
   *  a subject node
   * an predicate, labelling the arc, which is a URI reference, and
   * an object node
 ]] -- http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#xtocid103646


An RDF triple contains three components, called:
    * the subject
    * the predicate, which is an RDF URI reference
    * the object
]] -- http://sealpc09.cnuce.cnr.it/jeremy/RDF-concepts/2002-11-05/rdf-concepts.html#xtocid103646

I've been using the terms "subject node" and "object node" since they
are more distinctive than "subject" and "object" and shorter
than "the subject of the triple".

I'd prefer to to see this retained if that doesn't cause you

Finally, I'd love to see all the definitions and uses of terms linked
- everywhere "RDF triple" etc. is used linked to it's definition and
so on for all the terms.  Should be a global search / replace mostly.

Received on Tuesday, 5 November 2002 05:51:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:02 UTC