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: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 14:30:23 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030514142036.045abd10@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

At 08:55 14/05/2003 -0400, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:


>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,

You state in your message that the intent of the last call WD is 
clear.  I'm minded therefore to classify this as an editorial 
comment.  These are tracked by the editors, not on the last call comments 
list.  Dave proposed amendments to address your concern some time ago (30th 
Jan).

Brian


>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 09:29:59 GMT

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