W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > October to December 2002

Re: problem with blank node identifiers and rdf:nodeID

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 15:24:41 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20021128.152441.65680311.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk
Cc: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com, www-rdf-comments@w3.org

From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: problem with blank node identifiers and rdf:nodeID
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 17:32:47 +0000 (GMT)

> To be clear: Peter's correct that there's a bug in the transformation
> specification in the syntax document. A "name mangler" is _not_
> forbidden by the specification, however, since:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20021108/#section-Data-Model
> 
> says
> 
> [[
> This model illustrates one way to create a representation of an RDF
> Graph from an RDF/XML document. It does not mandate any implementation
> method - any other method that results in a representation of the same
> RDF Graph may be used.
> ]]

The problem is, however, that the document does not present a way of
producing a unique class of equivalent RDF graphs from an RDF/XML
document.  For example,

<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="..."
         xmlns:ex="...">

<rdf:Description rdf:nodeID="n1">
 <ex:foo>
  <rdf:Description />
 </ex:foo>
</rdf:Description>

</rdf:RDF>

could produce either of the two following RDF graphs

_:x1 <ex:foo> _:x1 .

or

_:x1 <ex:foo> _:x2 .

which are not equivalent.

peter
Received on Thursday, 28 November 2002 15:24:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:31 GMT