Hi Toby, Toby Inkster wrote: [snip] > > i.e. node identifiers are syntactic sugar. They're a very useful bit of > syntactic sugar in fact, because without them it would be pretty much > impossible to serialise a graph containing cyclical references between > blank nodes. But they're not a part of the RDF graph itself - so, > assuming that all an RDFa processor is required to output is an RDF > graph, it cannot be a requirement for RDF processors to retain blank > node identifiers. > Absolutely. In my case it would be _very_ difficult to achieve that. It would essentially mean that I would have to take over much of rdflib's functionalities on, say, serialization.... Ivan > That said, retaining blank node identifiers when possible is a good > thing - it helps the readability of any resultant serialisation, in much > the same way as retaining CURIE prefixes of the input RDFa does. > > The method I outlined does retain blank node identifiers in the vast > majority of cases, and can be guaranteed not to produce collisions, yet > it's still possible to implement as part of a one-pass algorithm. > > ____ > 1. http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/ > -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Sunday, 15 November 2009 19:10:47 UTC