Re: ACTION 2001-10-12#5: frankm respond to gk text

>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?

Nope. Oh, well, wait a minute. I guess Im not quite sure what exactly 
a parser for Ntriples is supposed to be doing. If it is constructing 
a graph then it doesnt need to generate anything. If however one is 
using the Ntriples as a primary notation to support inference, then 
yes, it will have to take some care to standardize nodeIDs apart from 
any nodeIDs from *other* documents. But strictly speaking it isn't 
*necessary* to generate new names to do this; renaming is just one 
technique for avoiding name clashes.

>  > 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...

That's internal to the graph representation code, though, not part of the RDF.

Pat
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes

Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2001 00:56:41 UTC