- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 14:10:56 -0500
- 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 http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/ 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... http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-syntax-incomplete Odd. that's not in our enumeration of syntax issues... 09 Oct 2001 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0119.html 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