Re: Re 2: PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-37: Clarifying bnode explanation

My preference goes to this.

Ivan

On Oct 19, 2010, at 18:38 , Toby Inkster wrote:

> How about:
> 
> """
> 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 .
> 
> The blank node identifiers ("_:john" and "_:sue") are arbitrary and
> implementations are not required to maintain the same identifiers as
> occur in the RDFa markup. The above data could have equivalently been
> represented as:
> 
>  _:a foaf:mbox <mailto:john@example.org> .
>  _:b foaf:mbox <mailto:sue@example.org> .
>  _:a foaf:knows _:b .
> 
> For clarity, this document retains blank node identifiers in examples,
> but developers must not rely on RDFa implementations returning
> identifiers that are consistent with the RDFa markup.
> """
> 
> -- 
> Toby A Inkster
> <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf