- From: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
- Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 16:39:34 -0700
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- CC: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Pat Hayes wrote: > [...] > > Frank Manola wrote: > > [...] > >[2.] If so, should they be clearly distinguishable as parser generated URI's? > > -- Stricly speaking, the parser is not required to generate URIs. > >The parser *is* required to generate local names (that are not URIs) > >for anonymous resources. These names *are* distinguishable from URIs. > > What exactly is 'the parser' here? (Parser of what?) If the parser is > parsing an Ntriples document, then the bNode ids are in the document > already and nothing needs to be generated. Not quite... If an Ntriple document contains bNode _x the parser must generate different internal ids for _x each time the document is parsed, right? > If the parser is dealing > directly with the graph syntax, then there is no need for the bNode > labels at all, and nothing needs to be generated. If the parser is > reading RDF/XML and constructing a graph, no new names need to be > generated. Again, some sort of internal ids (objects, or other data structures) still need to be generated... > The only case that requires generating any new names is > when something is reading either a graph or RDF/XML, and *generating* > an N-triples document. In that case, and that case alone, it needs to > generate some bNode names (since the Ntriples syntax requires them > and they aren't present in any other version of RDF.) But that is an > issue with Ntriples, not (centrally) with RDF itself, and I think we > should keep those issues separate. Our remit, after all, is to > clarify RDF; N-triples is only a handy notation we have invented for > describing RDF graphs, right? The graph is central. > > Pat Hayes Sergey
Received on Monday, 15 October 2001 19:13:40 UTC