W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > October to December 2002

RE: rdf:nodeID and external entities?

From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 22:43:50 -0800
Message-ID: <4F4182C71C1FDD4BA0937A7EB7B8B4C107290919@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: "www-rdf-comments" <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>

> Personally, I'm a bit nervous of that.  My recollection is that the WG
> discussed these node id's as being file scoped.  If we start making
> relative to the base uri then they are starting to look like URI's.
> are not and that will lead to confusion.

Isn't BaseUri a way of scoping something by file?  Are there other ways
besides BaseUri to precisely define what a "file" scope is?  Should we
consider items loaded into an infoset via XInclude or entity expansion
to be in the same "file"?

I agree that people could be confused by the idea that something which
is meant to *not* have an ID (bnode) is assigned an ID in the XML
serialization.  But I personally consider that an orthogonal issue to
the issue of BaseUri.  Here is why:

<http://www.cnn.com/> dc:Author _1 .
_1 ex:Name Joe .

("CNN.com has author who is named Joe").

If you import that file twice, regardless of whether or not you change
the Name of the resource referenced by _1, the blank node _1 is *not*
the same resource across two different parsing activities, while the
named node http://www.cnn.com/ *is*.

In other words, parsers MUST NOT use the same nodeID to reference the
same resource across multiple parsings of the same file.  This is
covered appropriately in the spec, since it needs to be covered for
nodeIDs that are *not* scoped by file, so it is already covered for
nodeIDs that *are* scoped by file.
Received on Saturday, 14 December 2002 01:44:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:01 UTC