- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 11:03:18 +0000
- To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
>>>Dave Reynolds said: ... > .. you could have used the interpretation of bNodes ... ... > _:1 <rdf:type> <rdf:Statement> . > _:1 <rdf:predicate> <p3p:birthdate> . > _:1 <rdf:subject> _:2 . > _:1 <rdf:object> _:3 . I'm not really picking on you :) but I've seen this mistake a few times and best to remind people _:1 _:2 and _:3 are not bNode identifiers as defined by N-Triples: nodeID ::= '_:' name name ::= [A-Za-z][A-Za-z0-9]* -- http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases/#ntrip_grammar I think it should stay that way so there is no confusion with rdf:_1 which I guess could be abbreviated to :_1 in N3 (not N-Triples) with default namespace set to RDF like this: -------------------------------------------------------------- @prefix : <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> . <http://example.org> :type :Seq . <http://example.org> :_1 <http://example.org/thing> . -------------------------------------------------------------- wouldn't a _:1 in that graph be confusing? Dave
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2002 06:06:47 UTC