- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:53:40 +0000
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
From RDF-comments [1]: >While parsing the RDF/XML, the parser generated bNode IDs that were >legal according to the RDF/XML specs and these were written as-is to the >N-Triples document. An example bNode identifier is "node09FC-1E4A-2". In >RDF/XML, the dashes (and underscores, etc.) are legal characters for >bNode identifiers. In N-Triples, however, only (ASCII-)letters and >number can be used. Thus the procedure sketched out above resulted in an >illegal N-Triples document. > >So, my question is: wouldn't it be convenient to make the two >definitions identical? Maybe it would be convenient, but I think any response should point out (and Concepts is quite clear about this [2]) that any particular representation of bnodes is always an artefact of the particular syntax used. When reading any syntax that uses bnode identifiers, applications must always be prepared to re-allocate the identifiers. I might even argue that having different syntax for N-triples and RDF/XML is (almost) a Good Thing, since it reinforces this point. #g -- [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0067.html [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-URI-Vocabulary http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#dfn-blank-node-id ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Tuesday, 28 October 2003 05:57:28 UTC