- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 11:00:32 +0100
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>>>Jeremy Carroll said:
>
>
> 2002-05-17#3 jjc Propose new text to describe serialization of b-nodes.
>
> Sorry I had forgotten this.
Me too. Excellent, I'll work this into the updated serialization section.
> Proposal:
>
> Delete section almost entirely, and just document what cannot be done.
>
> Rationale: we only owe the world an explanation of how to do what is
> unreasonably hard. There is published literature about RDF serialization,
> there is no need for the REC to duplicate this unless it is *necessary* for
> correct implementation.
>
> e.g. (sketch)
> [[
> Serialization
> ==========
>
> There are certain RDF graphs which follow the abstract syntax that cannot be
>
> serialized in RDF/XML.
>
> These are those that:
> - use property names that do not
> end in a (possibly empty) sequence of NC_NAME characters precededed by an
> NC_NAMESTART character preceeded by a URI ref. i.e. those that do not match
> the regular expression:
> URIref NC_NAMESTART (NC_NAME *)
>
> or
> - use inappropriate reserved names as properties.
>
> ]]
>
> Have I listed all the problem cases?
>
> If we wanted to reference my work on serialization, a short para like:
>
> [[
> Carroll [ref] discusses techniques to serialize RDF/XML in a fashion that use
s
> the full range of grammar rules to create human readable output.
> ]]
>
> Neutrally, I don't believe that that para is necessary, nor do I think it
> would be inappropriate.
Your report is now of more historical interest :) in getting around
the syntax without rdf:nodeID, but still worth citing for background
to the issues.
Dave
Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 06:02:10 UTC