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

Re: Comment on Last Call Working Draft of RDF Syntax document concerning blank node identifiers

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 08:55:51 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20030514.085551.68535916.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org


I view the following message sent to www-rdf-comments@w3.org as a
substantive comment.  However, I believe that it has not generated an
entry on the last call comments issues list.  Please add it to this list.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Lucent Technologies


From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Comment on Last Call Working Draft of RDF Syntax document concerning blank node identifiers 
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 15:15:30 +0000

> >>>"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" said:
> > 
> > 
> > The handling of blank nodes is still problematic in the LCC version of the
> > RDF Syntax document.  
> > 
> > The intent is clear.  Each nodeElement that does not otherwise get a
> > subject is given a blank node identifier as a subject.  The string-value of
> > this blank node identifer is to be different from the string-value of every
> > other blank node identifier resulting from the parsing of the RDF/XML
> > document.
> > 
> > 
> > However, the document does not follow this intent.  
> 
> <snip/>
> 
> I feel it does and although we've already discussed this in earlier
> messages, I propose to address this by adding the following
> clarifications in the sections you mentioned:
> 
> 
> 5.2 Identifiers - Blank Node Identifiers
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20030123/#section-Identifiers
> 
> I will try to improve the second paragraph to make it clearer how the
> algorithm used for generating / constructing concrete blank node
> identfifiers must not result in erroneously merged blank nodes in the
> graph.  If you have specific wording suggestions, they would be
> useful for me to consider.  I cannot work on the exact new set of
> words at this time, but will look at it in a few weeks.
> 
> 
> 6.1.7 Blank Node Identifier Event
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20030123/#section-blank-nodeid-event
> 
> Add a note that the generated blank node identifier may be not be the
> exact concatentation here but may be generated by any algorithm as
> discussed in 5.2, already pointed to here.
> 
> 
> 6.3 Grammar Notation
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20030123/#section-Infoset-Grammar-Notation
> 
> Add a pointer from the definition of bnodeid in the notation to point
> directly to the 5.2 blank node identifiers section, to be amended as
> described above.
> 
> Dave
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2003 08:56:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:32 GMT