- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 23:57:02 +0100
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
- CC: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, Art Barstow <barstow@w3.org>
>>>pat hayes said: > >On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 07:59:21AM -0400, Art Barstow wrote: > > > ACTION 2001-08-17#8 Art Barstow Write strawman WD on test cases ( > > > including n-triples). > > > > > > implies the N-Triples doc will be placed in the Test Case WD > > > (this has not been done yet): > > > > > > [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/08/rdf-test/ > > > >FYI - [2] now contains N-Triples: > > > > http://www.w3.org/2001/08/rdf-test/#ntriples > > Great, but but Art is not responsible for the content of the N-Triples document, which has been sitting around for weeks at the old URI, linked from our home page http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/ He merged it in, and I have not had the time to update it since I've been working on the other document. Moreover I didn't have permission to write to it till an hour or so a ago. > 1. PLEASE let us not call anonnodes 'namedNode'. The whole point of > the damn things is that they are nodes that do NOT have a name. This > is like calling bald people 'hairy'. In a previous mail to the list I noted in a reply to Jos: > 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. -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Aug/0185.html The rest can wait till later, when I've updated the syntax doc after the review. <megasnip/> Dave
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2001 18:57:06 UTC