W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > January 2002

Re: Common RDF parser bug?

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 11:03:18 +0000
To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-ID: <4042.1011697398@tatooine.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
>>>Dave Reynolds said:
...
> .. you could have used the interpretation of bNodes ...
...
>     _:1    <rdf:type> <rdf:Statement> .
>     _:1     <rdf:predicate> <p3p:birthdate> .
>     _:1     <rdf:subject> _:2 .
>     _:1     <rdf:object> _:3 .


I'm not really picking on you :) but I've seen this mistake a few
times and best to remind people _:1 _:2 and _:3 are not bNode
identifiers as defined by N-Triples:

  nodeID  ::=  '_:' name
  name  ::=  [A-Za-z][A-Za-z0-9]*

  -- http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases/#ntrip_grammar


I think it should stay that way so there is no confusion with rdf:_1
which I guess could be abbreviated to :_1 in N3 (not N-Triples) with
default namespace set to RDF like this:

--------------------------------------------------------------
@prefix : <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .

<http://example.org> :type :Seq .
<http://example.org> :_1   <http://example.org/thing> .
--------------------------------------------------------------

wouldn't a _:1 in that graph be confusing?

Dave
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2002 06:06:47 GMT

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