W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > November 2002

RE: Primer synch with other documents

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 11:25:47 +0100
To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

Going on-list ....

> I'd stick it in 2.3.2 since it is there where you first mention
> "Blank".   Identification of distinct but blank nodes deserves to go
> here.  Introducing a term for syntax-specific identifiers for such
> blank nodes could be in another doc, but I expect we all want to talk
> about them since otherwise we say things like:
>   nodes are [URI refs] or [Literals] or <nothing to point at here>
> I can live with defining the term blank node identifiers per-syntax;
> it'll just have to be done twice for rdf/xml and n-triples, and again
> in other docs?

I am looking at this para and the latest editors version of concepts:


(I currently have the lock).

Graham defines "local node identifier" (I prefer "blank node identifier", I
will chat with him as to why the change).

I carefully avoid a constructive definition of blank node, a definition just
gets in the way.
The blank nodes of an RDF graph are those nodes that are not RDF literals or
RDF URI References.
is what I say; so that as far as the abstract syntax is concerned my mum can
be a subject or an object of a triple in a graph. Then she is a node in the
graph, and by virtue of not being a literal or a URIref she is a blank node.
All that means is that her internal structure is not relevant to RDF.

Received on Tuesday, 5 November 2002 05:25:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:18 UTC