W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > November 2009

Re: PROPOSAL: Errata text regarding defining a prefix of '_'

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 16:28:22 -0600
Message-ID: <git806lhl515e8iq2d0ps662.1258237702337@email.android.com>
To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, "public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf.w3.org" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
I agree that the technique described will work. I am surprised that you think it ok okay to change the bnode in the emitted triples. While you might not think it has a meaning, others may...

Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sat, 2009-11-14 at 12:06 -0600, Shane McCarron wrote:
>> My question is this:  How do you ensure that your implicit, 
>> automatically created bnode names never collide with a documents 
>> explicit, auto-vivified bnode names?  And should we have some sort of
>> a test case to ensure this happens? 
>It's not especially difficult. Here's one technique a parser could
>	When an explicitly named bnode is found, check if its name
>	starts '_:bn'. If not, use it verbatim. But if so, replace
>	the '_:bn' with '_:bnbn'.
>	When a name is needed for an implicit bnode, give it one
>	starting '_:bn' followed by numbers.
>You should find that this can never produce a collision. Of course if
>means that in some cases, explicitly named blank nodes in the input RDFa
>have different names in the output graph. But that's OK - RDF doesn't
>assign any meanings to the names of blank nodes.
>Toby A Inkster
Received on Saturday, 14 November 2009 22:29:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:05 UTC