- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 23:56:37 -0500
- To: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
- Cc: 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? 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