- From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 21:10:26 +0000 (GMT)
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- cc: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com, www-rdf-comments <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
On Thu, 28 Nov 2002, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk> > Subject: Re: problem with blank node identifiers and rdf:nodeID > Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 17:32:47 +0000 (GMT) > > > To be clear: Peter's correct that there's a bug in the transformation > > specification in the syntax document. A "name mangler" is _not_ > > forbidden by the specification, however, since: > > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20021108/#section-Data-Model > > > > says > > > > [[ > > This model illustrates one way to create a representation of an RDF > > Graph from an RDF/XML document. It does not mandate any implementation > > method - any other method that results in a representation of the same > > RDF Graph may be used. > > ]] > > The problem is, however, that the document does not present a way of > producing a unique class of equivalent RDF graphs from an RDF/XML > document. For example, > > <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="..." > xmlns:ex="..."> > > <rdf:Description rdf:nodeID="n1"> > <ex:foo> > <rdf:Description /> > </ex:foo> > </rdf:Description> > > </rdf:RDF> > > could produce either of the two following RDF graphs > > _:x1 <ex:foo> _:x1 . > > or > > _:x1 <ex:foo> _:x2 . > > which are not equivalent. That's why the "Blank Node Identifier" generation needs documenting; and the use of the nodeID attribute value needs modifying when turned into a blank node identifier, too. The original text predates nodeID; the doc needs a bugfix but I don't think it's a large one. Providing that nodeID attribute-values can't clash with generated ids, everything else should be ok, right? -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 http://ioctl.org/jan/ perl -e 's?ck?t??print:perl==pants if $_="Just Another Perl Hacker\n"'
Received on Thursday, 28 November 2002 16:11:50 UTC