- From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 09:54:30 -0600
- To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:15:42 +0100, Arjohn >Kampman <arjohn.kampman@aduna.biz> wrote: > >> >> Dear editors of the RDF Test Cases document, >> >> Last week, we stumbled across a problem in Sesame when RDF was read from >> an RDF/XML document and then written as N-Triples. The problem was >> related to the bNode identifiers, whose definition in RDF/XML and >> N-Triples is slightly different: >> >> 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? > >It might be convienient but sadly, I don't think it's realistic. > >An rdf:nodeID in RDF/XML defined at > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#nodeIdAttr >takes as a value a string compatible with an XML name: > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#rdf-id >which has a wide range of characters allowed and >permits the full range of international characters. > >It is also useful to re-use this XML definition since it enables checking >using the standard XML NCName term (which can be then checked >by XML schema languages which likely support that) > >The subset that are also legal as N-Triples is thus rather narrow. ?? I fail to follow this. The XML spec is rather wide, we have to follow it, so we have to be rather narrow? What?? >N-Triples also has had a (weak, but remains, "would be-nice") >requirement to keep itself as a subset of N3. !!!??!! Where did that come from? Has the WG ever made that decision? > N3 imposes several >restrictions on the names that are allowed, and they vary between >implementations. The current set of allowed names define dby > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases/#name >is thus not likely to change. > >I think '-' in particular might have other uses in N3 for paths, >arithmetic, a funky -_ encoding scheme or may be reserved or unwise. >You'd have to ask the N3 developers, since I can't recall all the details. > >Please reply, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org whether this response >is an acceptable disposition of your comment. I hope it isn't considered acceptable. Our syntax is constrained by N3??? That is news to me and I think it is ridiculous. N3 isnt even properly defined anywhere, it is not a standard and it has virtually a nonexistent user community outside the W3C itself. I bear the N3 developers no ill-will, but it is insane for us to be constraining our syntax (and inconveniencing our potential users) because of undocumented syntactic vagaries of a few hackers. Pat >Thanks > >Dave -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 30 October 2003 10:54:38 UTC