- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 20:04:35 +0100
- To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
- CC: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Mark Birbeck wrote: > However, nowhere do we say that in between the two serialisations > (RDFa and Turtle) the data has been stored and re-serialised. And > since nothing has happened in between those two serialisations then it > would be *wrong* to have a mismatch in the blank node identifiers that > are used in those two serialisations. not really being pedantic, but the only way to get the Turtle from the RDFa is to store and serialize it, so in reality anybody taking the example RDFa and converting it to Turtle will see different bnode identifiers. In fact about the only time the identifiers will ever presented as consistent, is in this document. The only reason the bnode identifiers are aligned in the examples is because the group has chosen to show them that way for the sake of clarity, thus it appears perfectly reasonable to also state that bnode identifiers can't be relied upon and show an RDFa-Turtle example pair where the bnode identifiers aren't aligned, again for the sake of clarity. The issue looks to be "clarifying bnode explanation" and I for one feel the text Toby suggested, with both examples, does indeed clarify the explanation of bnodes. Do you disagree?
Received on Wednesday, 20 October 2010 19:05:36 UTC