- 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