- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 15:12:23 -0700
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>DanBri: >> I propose section 6 be dropped for now, until this is fixed. > >Opposed. > >There are practical problems in RDF serialization. >At some point the specs need to acknowledge this, and indicate to >implementors what they should do. Why does the spec need to tell implementors what to do? There are several well-known techniques for handling local variables, and the choice is up to the implementor. >In RDF2 I would hope to fix Fix what? >this, e.g. allow the "_:nnn" bnode syntax as >matching uriref production in the grammar. >That was out of charter. > >The charter allows us to clarify M&S. >The clarification is "this is screwed up". Wait: its not screwed up. The MT is about as clear as it can possibly be on this issue. Bnodes are not urirefs, and it is *invalid* to replace a bnode by a uriref, even a 'new' one. Sorry about the practical problems, but life is like that. I vote to scrap the misleading wording in section 6. 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, 30 April 2002 13:02:56 UTC