W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > October 2010

Re: Re 2: PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-37: Clarifying bnode explanation

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 20:04:35 +0100
Message-ID: <4CBF3D43.6020103@webr3.org>
To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
CC: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Mark Birbeck wrote:
> However, nowhere do we say that in between the two serialisations
> (RDFa and Turtle) the data has been stored and re-serialised. And
> since nothing has happened in between those two serialisations then it
> would be *wrong* to have a mismatch in the blank node identifiers that
> are used in those two serialisations.

not really being pedantic, but the only way to get the Turtle from the 
RDFa is to store and serialize it, so in reality anybody taking the 
example RDFa and converting it to Turtle will see different bnode 
identifiers. In fact about the only time the identifiers will ever 
presented as consistent, is in this document.

The only reason the bnode identifiers are aligned in the examples is 
because the group has chosen to show them that way for the sake of 
clarity, thus it appears perfectly reasonable to also state that bnode 
identifiers can't be relied upon and show an RDFa-Turtle example pair 
where the bnode identifiers aren't aligned, again for the sake of clarity.

The issue looks to be "clarifying bnode explanation" and I for one feel 
the text Toby suggested, with both examples, does indeed clarify the 
explanation of bnodes.

Do you disagree?
Received on Wednesday, 20 October 2010 19:05:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:05:21 UTC