Re: Comment on Last Call Working Draft of RDF Syntax document concerning blank node identifiers

>>>"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" said:
> The handling of blank nodes is still problematic in the LCC version of the
> RDF Syntax document.  
> The intent is clear.  Each nodeElement that does not otherwise get a
> subject is given a blank node identifier as a subject.  The string-value of
> this blank node identifer is to be different from the string-value of every
> other blank node identifier resulting from the parsing of the RDF/XML
> document.
> However, the document does not follow this intent.  


I feel it does and although we've already discussed this in earlier
messages, I propose to address this by adding the following
clarifications in the sections you mentioned:

5.2 Identifiers - Blank Node Identifiers

I will try to improve the second paragraph to make it clearer how the
algorithm used for generating / constructing concrete blank node
identfifiers must not result in erroneously merged blank nodes in the
graph.  If you have specific wording suggestions, they would be
useful for me to consider.  I cannot work on the exact new set of
words at this time, but will look at it in a few weeks.

6.1.7 Blank Node Identifier Event

Add a note that the generated blank node identifier may be not be the
exact concatentation here but may be generated by any algorithm as
discussed in 5.2, already pointed to here.

6.3 Grammar Notation

Add a pointer from the definition of bnodeid in the notation to point
directly to the 5.2 blank node identifiers section, to be amended as
described above.


Received on Thursday, 30 January 2003 10:18:07 UTC