W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > November 2001

Re: n3/n-triples syntax question

From: Thomas B. Passin <tpassin@home.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 23:23:28 -0500
Message-ID: <001c01c17a1f$eda6a1e0$7cac1218@cj64132b>
To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
[Tim Berners-Lee]
>

> If you are not using a pipe, then why use a number at all?
> Use the address of hte object created. This is one
> way I have been thinking of taking the cwm code - the
> anonymous nodes have no allocated URI until they are output,
> and at that point they are regenerated.  I have code in
> cwm actually to regenerate them on output just to make the file
> look cleaner.
>

Yes, and as I remember, the last time around on this one people were saying
that you generally need some id (or address) within a system for the system
to function, but what - if any - id to output was a matter for the
serializer, not a fundamental triples graph issue.  At that time we were
talking about whether triples needed their own ids (making them quads) or
not.

Say you have an anonymous node that participates in several statements.  If
the serializer can group them together under the same parent element, the
node probably doesn't need an independent id.  But what if this anonymous
node happens to connect to other anonymous nodes?  It seems too much to
expect that they could all be grouped sufficiently that all ids could be
avoided.  Then what should a serializer do?

Basically, we need to be able to say "I'm talking about ***this*** anonymous
node, not ***that*** one", as was pointed out a few posts ago.  If that can
be done by syntax and grouping, fine.  If not, such nodes would seem to need
ids.  Do they also need to be tagged as being "anonymous" or not?  That
sounds a bit strange, but maybe it would be useful.  And if so, does that
need another triple to say it?

Cheers,

Tom P
Received on Friday, 30 November 2001 23:23:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:52 GMT