- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 17:25:57 +0100
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- CC: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Ivan Herman wrote: > our current text says. > > [[[ > After processing, the following triples will be generated: > > _:john foaf:mbox <mailto:john@example.org> . > _:sue foaf:mbox <mailto:sue@example.org> . > _:john foaf:knows _:sue . > ]]] > > First of all, this is _wrong_, plainly and simply. And all our examples reuse the same blank nodes in the output as in the input. Mainly if people begin to use the API, where these things really count, they might expect to get to the same blank node id-s. You are right that this is not what we say, but this is what we suggest. And that is, didactically, wrong. Shane suggested to say 'Triples similar to the following will be generated:' and use _:X for _:john and _:y for _:sue. I think that is the minimum we should do. Perhaps we just need to be a bit more verbose, specifically on that example, and say something like: After processing, the triples similar to the following will be generated: _:john foaf:mbox <mailto:john@example.org> . _:sue foaf:mbox <mailto:sue@example.org> . _:john foaf:knows _:sue . or _:x foaf:mbox <mailto:john@example.org> . _:y foaf:mbox <mailto:sue@example.org> . _:x foaf:knows _:y . swapping 'or' for some text explaining why (ie have both examples rather than one or the other) Best, Nathan
Received on Saturday, 9 October 2010 16:27:16 UTC