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

Re: N-Triples changes for datatype values, (possible) N3 alignment

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 12:47:11 +0300
Message-ID: <001501c27c0b$7dddaf40$904716ac@NOE.Nokia.com>
To: "ext Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@mimesweeper.com>
Cc: "w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>



[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com]


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ext Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@mimesweeper.com>
To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: "w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 25 October, 2002 12:02
Subject: Re: N-Triples changes for datatype values, (possible) N3 alignment 


> At 10:13 AM 10/25/02 +0300, Patrick Stickler wrote:
> >Is it really that much more effort to look for [a-zA-Z] or
> >even [^<] rather than '@' and '<' rather than '^^'.
> >
> >I can't help but suspect that there are specific plans for
> >assigning structural meaning to these delimiters in a similar
> >fashion to how '^' is now defined for N3.
> 
> FWIW, I think the proposed syntax is just fine.
> 
> If it has been chosen to fit in with future plans for N3 (and I don't know 
> that it has), I really don't see a problem there.
> 
> This is a data format that has been designed for expressing test cases, and 
> one of the key tools for evaluating test cases is cwm, so I think a little 
> deference in that direction is not at all inappropriate.

I think you are missing the point.

N3, and hence cwm, does not support the ^^ notation. It's not a matter
of making N-Triples compatable with the present definition of N3, but
with some undefined future definition of N3. And if the N3 interpretation
of ^^ is anything like ^ then that will mean that N3 will be producing
a different graph from RDF/XML which I find unacceptable.

I have no problems showing deference to N3. I simply smell an anticipated
extension to N3 that will cause problems.

DanC, please correct me if I am wrong here, but is not the ^^ notation
a mechanism that is expected to allow cwm to treat typed literals as
bnodes with properties?

Patrick
Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 05:47:15 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:52:30 EDT