W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > April to June 2003

[closed] Re: nodeID

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 18:32:14 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: Roland Schwaenzl <roland@mathematik.uni-osnabrueck.de>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org

At 13:01 02/04/2003 +0200, Roland Schwaenzl wrote:

>Dear wg,
>maybe i'm missing something: Is there mentioning  rdf:nodeID is not 
>supposed to survive parsing at another place than in the syntax and model 


Are you referring to the model and syntax document


rdf:nodeID is a new feature introduced by the RDFCore WG that is not 
described in this document.  It is described in the new RDF working drafts 
such as:


>Isn't it rdf:nodeID's provide a simple hack, which allows to (re)-serialize
>RDF  graphs as  rather flat verbose XML (with literal parsetype as exception)?

Whether the feature is simple, a hack and produces flat or verbose XML are 
value judgements about which the WG has expressed no opinion.

rdf:nodeID is designed to enable the serialization of graphs such as:

   _:a rdf:value _:a .

in RDF/XML, which was not possible before.

>I would like to see cases -if there are- described in the primer, which 
>require (!) the use of rdf:ID, rdf:resource and other syntax constructs -

The WG's last call comment period has been closed for some time.  Whilst we 
try to be responsive to comments we receive, there has to come a time when 
we stop trying to improve the documents and start trying to lock them 
down.  For us, that time has arrived.

I intend to propose to the WG that we don't accept this as a last call 
comment on the grounds it does not identify a major technical problem with 
the specs and that is has arrived too late for us to consider.  Is that 
acceptable to you?

Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2003 12:31:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:20 UTC