- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 12:46:01 +0100
- To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
There seems to be some divergence of view on this. Lets make it an issue. Does the model theory take a position on prince arcs? Brian Dave Beckett wrote: > > >>>jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com said: > > while at next telecon agenda items, > > what about the N-triples/MT related questions > > 1. predicate ::= uriref versus predicate ::= uriref | namedNode? > > Does RDF allow, let's call it, non-URI-ref for predicates? > I don't think so, at present. In the graph model in the original > M&S, predicates are arrows with URIs, they are never empty circles. > > > 2. why do we use the term namedNode for a node which is in fact not named? > > It was anonNode - which was probably worse, so I changed it. > How about princeNode? > > It is just a token in the N-Triples grammar and if it will reduce any > implied meaning by changing the characters of the token, let's do it. > > > ps question 1 is in fact related with the problem to write > > e.g. the following N-triples > > <#a> _:x <#d>. > > _:x <#b> <#c>. > > in RDF/XML syntax > > Jeremy/Dave, do you have trouble with that? > > Well at present I say it is illegal N-Triples. > > Dave
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2001 07:49:33 UTC