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

Issue #williams-01 What is a node in an RDF graph?

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:07:11 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org, skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com

At 17:48 20/02/2003 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:


> >
> > 2) Section 3.2 1st Para: (Picky)
> > Defines "Nodes in an RDF graph are URIs with... literals or blank..." ie.
> > states that one kind of RDF node is a "URI Reference". I'd prefer to see
> > language that said that and a node in an RDF graph may be labelled with a
> > URI reference that denotes/identifies the resource/thing which the node
> > represents.
> >
> > Suggested rewording:
> > "Nodes in an RDF are either literals, blank (having no separate form of
> > identification) or labelled with a URI Reference with optional fragment
> > identifiers."
> >
> > This has knock on effects on the next two para's which are written with the
> > tone that (some) nodes in an RDF graph *are* URI References rather the tone
> > that (some) nodes in an RDF graph are *labelled* with URI References.
>The issue of whether the nodes in the graph are labelled
>with uri references and/or literals or *are* uri references
>or literals has been discussed a number of times by the WG.
>Your suggestion here is different from any of the combinations
>we have discussed:
>  that literal nodes are literals
>  that uri reference nodes are labelled with uri references
>I am glad that the comment was not that some parts of the
>document took one point of view, and other parts the other.
>It would be helpful to the WG if you advocated a change
>with more force than "I'd prefer to see ...", or
>alternatively withdrew this. The WG has at different times
>considered different wordings, and so far preferred the
>current wording over alternatives
>(see for example the wording in:
>Partly we have found it advantageous to not need
>a discussion of tidiness.


This comment has been recorded in


The RDFCore WG will consider this comment and get back to you in due course.

Thank you for your efforts in reviewing the WG's documents.

Received on Monday, 24 February 2003 08:50:55 UTC

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