W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > October 2001

Re: Resolution of: #rdfms-identity-anon-resources

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 20:23:51 -0500
Message-Id: <p05101015b7ed46bda7f2@[]>
To: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>Pat Hayes wrote:
>>  >It looks like it is still the case that RDF/XML syntax can only
>>  >represent a subset of valid RDF graphs,
>>  But that, I gather, is the case more generally.
>>  >in which there are no circles
>>  >that contain bNodes only. If so, this limitation needs to be stressed in
>>  >the spec(s).
>>  Agreed. There should be a whole little essay (in the primer?) about
>>  the different notations and the relationships between them.
>>  >An exception handling mechanism must be specified as well.
>>  Why? Isn't it enough that there should be round-tripping from RDF/XML
>>  -> graph -> RDF/XML?
>There should be, but probably won't be (unless the syntax subgroup would
>attack the issue e.g. by introducing an additional attribute for
>referencing local bNodes). Therefore, as an implementor, I'd like to
>know what to expect when I try to serialize _x --property--> _x.

Well, it's easy in Ntriples, and you can't do it in RDF/XML. What 
more do you want? If you are working in RDF/XML, then you will never 
ever come across such a graph in any case, right?

Actually I'm still not completely convinced that it really is 
impossible to say this in XML.  But I need to focus on the MT for a 


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Friday, 12 October 2001 21:24:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:05 UTC