W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > August 2001

Re: XML Serialization

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:06:39 -0700
Message-Id: <v04210104b7b58f789a31@[]>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
> > >I do wish we could have the debate over what is the right language,
> > >but I think the only practical way to make it happen and make it
> > >involve little loss of blood is to be secure in the knowledge that the
> > >language doesn't really matter, because it's the graph that counts.
> >
> > Right. Keep that in your sights. It's the graph that counts.
>Yeah.   I think of it as the triples (floating in space, free of
>syntax), but I think those are the same things.

If the triples stay floating, I agree they are the same.

> > >If we do pick a character-sequence notation as the fundamental
> > >standard, I think it should be as simple as possible.  Something like
> > >N-Triples, although I can think of at least four big issues with even
> > >something that simple.  (identifier syntax, literal syntax [and type],
> > >equality, and nesting.)
> >
> > Nah, the main (only?) N-triples issues are re-naming anonymous node
> > labels and how to ignore triple ordering. All the others are issues,
> > but they are issues in the RDF graph itself. RDF can't do nesting,
> > for example. It just can't; nothing to do with Ntriples. (RDF++ maybe
> > will, one day, but....)
>Two sets of issues here.
>(1) Yes, Nesting and Equality are clearly not in RDF as it stands.
>But Drew was talking about trying to sneak in some extra features, and
>those are my two favorites (if we're going to add anything, which I'm
>not sure I'd want to do, even if I could).   I'm probably happier
>having them in a higher layer anyway.
>(2) Issues with the labels in the graph:
>     (a) Identifier Syntax:  Why must our logical symbols adhere to RFC
>     2396 URI-Reference syntax?

Well, I agree, but that is W3C doctrine, and I've been persuaded that 
it is harmless, so have stopped arguing about it.

> Why not a number or string of bytes
>     or something?   (I guess the answer is to help keep people from
>     accidentally using the same identifiers.)
>     (b) Literals: Why a sequence of Unicode characters, instead of
>     bytes or numbers (which seem much more clean)?  Or is it even a
>     sequence of characters, or something more silly, like an XML
>     expression or something...?

Im still not exactly sure what a literal actually *is*, to be honest. 
But if we are going to use character strings, why not Unicode? UTF-8 
allows you keep ASCII these days if you want it.

Pat Hayes

(650)859 6569 w
(650)494 3973 h (until September)
Received on Friday, 31 August 2001 15:05:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:36 UTC