- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 16:28:22 -0600
- 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 >follow: > > 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 ><mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> ><http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Saturday, 14 November 2009 22:29:06 UTC