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

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

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 14:10:56 -0500
Message-ID: <3BCB34C0.18CC64AA@w3.org>
To: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Sergey Melnik wrote:
> Dan Connolly wrote:
> >
> > Sergey Melnik wrote:
> > >  Therefore, as an implementor, I'd like to
> > > know what to expect when I try to serialize _x --property--> _x.
> >
> > Such a graph could never come from parsing RDF/XML.
> >
> > I'd suggest that if somebody built such a graph thru some
> > API and then asked to serialize it as RDF/XML, you throw
> > an exception.
> A sentence like yours above (but of course more normative) should be
> included in the spec somewhere.

Dave, would you please add such a note to the syntax spec?
I think PatH said he'd say something to that effect in the
model theory document. Hmm.. suggested wording...

	Note that not all RDF graphs can be serialized
	in RDF's XML syntax. For example, graphs with
	cycles composed of bNodes[sic], or property
	names that don't end in XML name characters.

Maybe there's already one in the syntax draft?
I don't see it in
as of this writing (I'd cite by CVS $Date$ or HTTP
last modified, but I can't find either of those).

It seems most closely related to this issue...

Odd. that's not in our enumeration of syntax issues...
  09 Oct 2001

Maybe it's too new?

Hmm... the syntax spec doesn't seem to discuss serializing
graphs at all... only parsing them. Dave, have you thought
about a section to explain serializing? Seems quite useful
for implementors... and even users: "don't expect your RDF
to get serialized exactly the way it was parsed; expect
the meaning to be the same, but not the syntactic details."

> After all, people want (and will try) to
> exchange arbitrary graphs. Do you think it is off charter to include a
> new attribute like "localID" in the RDF/XML syntax to make it as
> powerful as the underlying graph model?

Yes, I'm afraid it is unreasonable to add such a syntax feature
and call it a clarification of RDF 1.0.

It's a great idea to go along with rdf:resourceQ or whatever,
i.e. an attribute just like rdf:resource and rdf:about except
that it uses QNames.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 15 October 2001 15:10:59 UTC

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