- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 11:35:20 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > DanBri: > > I propose section 6 be dropped for now, until this is fixed. > > Opposed. Ah, we disagree. > There are practical problems in RDF serialization. Agreed > At some point the specs need to acknowledge this, and indicate to > implementors what they should do. Offer guidance, sure. Provide pseudocode -- perhaps in a Note. The current text provides an algorithm for taking an RDF graph and turning it into an RDF/XML document whose meaning is different from the graph's. Our decisions on bNodes make this clear. > In RDF2 I would hope to fix this, e.g. allow the "_:nnn" bnode syntax as > matching uriref production in the grammar. > That was out of charter. Yup. I'd do it a bit differently: unique bnode labels could be (just about...) done as unambiguous properties of a resource. (as could URI names, imho, but definitely RDF 2 territory there). This doesn't help folk tying to serialize the 1.0 spec graphs, and having guidance in the doc (or a doc) is useful. I want to write a serializer in Ruby, for eg., and guidance much appreciated. > The charter allows us to clarify M&S. > The clarification is "this is screwed up". Having a serialization algorithm that directly contravenes one of our most painfully drawn out decisions also feels a bit wrong. I'd rather the spec stayed silent or we introduced a better version of the id/idref linking syntax (which'd take time) than include the current spec. > I think a minor change highlighting that the meaning of the graph has > changed in such a serialization may improve the document. If the meaning changes, it's not a serialization so much as a transformation... Dan > > Jeremy > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org > > [mailto:w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Dan Brickley > > Sent: 26 April 2002 12:14 > > To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > > Subject: comments on syntax wd: bug in graph seriali[zs]ation algo > > > > > > > > http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Serialising > > [[ > > All blank nodes are assigned arbitrary URIs. > > ]] > > > > This is inconsitent with our policy w.r.t. blank nodes. > > > > I propose section 6 be dropped for now, until this is fixed. > > > > Dan > > > > >
Received on Friday, 26 April 2002 11:36:23 UTC