W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > October 2003

RE: N-Triples VS RDF/XML bNode identifiers

From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:12:31 -0600
Message-Id: <p06001f07bbc499a08e77@[10.1.31.1]>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Graham Klyne" <GK@ninebynine.org>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

>I've not read the comment yet, going on Graham's quote.
>
>Suggested response is:
>
>[[
>In RDF/XML it would be unnatural to restrict bnode identifiers to US ASCII.
>This would prevent document authors from using bnode IDs with mnemonic
>identifiers in Thai for example.
>Given the goals of N-triple - a testing language, the restriction to
>US-ASCII is well-motivated.
>
>Thus it is not possible to align the two concepts while being faithful to
>the design goals of the two languages.
>]]
>
>It would be better to quote from the docs - I suspect there's a suitable
>piece about Ntriple being in US ASCII.

Well, OK, but guys, he has a point. Why not just tweak Ntriples to 
allow all of ASCII? That wouldn't break any of our stuff and it would 
be generally good-citizen-ish.

Pat

>Jeremy
>
>
>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
>>  [mailto:w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Graham Klyne
>>  Sent: 28 October 2003 11:54
>>  To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>>  Subject: Fwd: N-Triples VS RDF/XML bNode identifiers
>>
>>
>>
>>   From RDF-comments [1]:
>>
>>  >While parsing the RDF/XML, the parser generated bNode IDs that were
>>  >legal according to the RDF/XML specs and these were written as-is to the
>>  >N-Triples document. An example bNode identifier is "node09FC-1E4A-2". In
>>  >RDF/XML, the dashes (and underscores, etc.) are legal characters for
>>  >bNode identifiers. In N-Triples, however, only (ASCII-)letters and
>>  >number can be used. Thus the procedure sketched out above resulted in an
>>  >illegal N-Triples document.
>>  >
>>  >So, my question is: wouldn't it be convenient to make the two
>>  >definitions identical?
>>
>>  Maybe it would be convenient, but I think any response should point out
>>  (and Concepts is quite clear about this [2]) that any particular
>>  representation of bnodes is always an artefact of the particular syntax
>>  used.  When reading any syntax that uses bnode identifiers, applications
>>  must always be prepared to re-allocate the identifiers.
>>
>>  I might even argue that having different syntax for N-triples and RDF/XML
>>  is (almost) a Good Thing, since it reinforces this point.
>>
>>  #g
>>  --
>>
>>  [1]
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0067.html
>
>[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-URI-Vocabulary
>      http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#dfn-blank-node-id
>
>
>------------
>Graham Klyne
>For email:
>http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC	(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501			(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Tuesday, 28 October 2003 17:12:32 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tuesday, 28 October 2003 17:12:40 EST