[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COMMONSRDF-6?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14508282#comment-14508282
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on COMMONSRDF-6:
-----------------------------------------
GitHub user stain opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-commonsrdf/pull/10
COMMONSRDF-6 Simplify BlankNode.internalIdentifier
An attempt to improve COMMONSRDF-6 by making
`BlankNode.internalIdentifier()` contract generic, e.g. remove
implementation-specifics such as salts.
_As GitHub pull request email sync to Apache seems to not be very stable at
the moment - leave comments on
[COMMONSRDF-6](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COMMONSRDF-6) in Jira
rather than in the GitHub UI_
This keeps the "MUST be universally unique"
aspect with a recommendation to have a UUID included,
so that `internalIdentifier()` has a more well-defined
purpose.
`simple/` updated accordingly to ensure universally unique
UUID string, and hence now passes in `java.util.UUID` from the factory
rather than using `Objects.identityHashCode()`.
As it might be easier to inspect the resulting JavaDoc, rather than the
diffs, I have generated:
http://stain.github.io/incubator-commonsrdf/COMMONSRDF-6/org/apache/commons/rdf/api/RDFTermFactory.html#createBlankNode--
http://stain.github.io/incubator-commonsrdf/COMMONSRDF-6/org/apache/commons/rdf/api/BlankNode.html
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/stain/incubator-commonsrdf
COMMONSRDF-6-internalidentifier
Alternatively you can review and apply these changes as the patch at:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-commonsrdf/pull/10.patch
To close this pull request, make a commit to your master/trunk branch
with (at least) the following in the commit message:
This closes #10
----
commit 28f92188e02b97ed87f28d783fdf524f03a883ec
Author: Stian Soiland-Reyes <[email protected]>
Date: 2015-04-21T09:51:59Z
COMMONSRDF-6 Make BlankNode.internalIdentifier generic
.. e.g. remove implementation-specifics such as
salts.
This keeps the "MUST be universally unique"
aspect with a recommendation to have a UUID included,
so that internalIdentifier() has a more well-defined
purpose.
commit 367d7305f729ff786d7f77f663750633582153b4
Author: Stian Soiland-Reyes <[email protected]>
Date: 2015-04-23T00:35:01Z
COMMONSRDF-6 Simplify internalIdentifier salts
BlankNodeImpl constructor take a UUID as salt, which is created for each
SimpleRDFTermFactory instance. SimpleRDFTermFactory keeps a random
UUIDv4 per instance for this purpose.
(This may not be effective if loads of factories are made, but this is
the simple implementation which is not required to be pre-emptively
efficient.)
Constructor BlankNodeImpl() without arguments still uses an
internal AtomicLong, now combined with an internal UUID salt.
This could in theory just do
this.id = UUID.randomUUID().toString()
and not keep any counter, but it is much more conceivable that say
10.000 BlankNodeImpls will be made, than 10.000 SimpleRDFTermFactories.
I did not do any performance testing, but kept the AtomicLong mechanism
as I didn't feel a need to change it now.
----
> Contract around the internal string of a blank node
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: COMMONSRDF-6
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COMMONSRDF-6
> Project: Apache Commons RDF
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Stian Soiland-Reyes (old)
>
> From https://github.com/commons-rdf/commons-rdf/issues/56
> afs:
> {quote}
> RDF 1.1 says "IRIs, literals and blank nodes are distinct and
> distinguishable." [my emphasis]
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-rdf-graph
> This is a consequence of RDF being an abstract syntax - there is no
> logic/entailment at this level - it was true in RDF 1.0 but now it is
> explciitly stated in RDF Concepts.
> Distinguishable blank nodes mean that unique characteristics need to align to
> the Java identity contract.
> At least, the same (= RDFTerm.equals) blank node, even when different java
> objects, must have the same internal string. (.equals)
> It's a one-way implicition: same internal string does not imply equality so
> this works across independent implementations.
> An extreme implementation is to always return the same internal string (may
> not be helpful but should be legal).
> {quote}
> afs:
> {quote}
> This also related to the proposed {{BlankNode.ntriplesString()}}.
> The choice of output string is dependent on the writing process. It only
> needs to be unique across the file being written. A choice for output is
> short forms like ":b0", ":b1" etc.
> The ntriples output form is not a unique property of the blank node. I think
> we should not include ntriplesString in the core common API.
> {quote}
> stain:
> {quote}
> Not sure what this is proposing, but :-1: to remove BlankNode.ntriplesString
> - and :+1: to improve the contract text for BlankNode.
> I found ntriplesString very useful as it becomes an interoperability point
> and have (largely) predictable outputs.
> The commons RDF API stays very close to the rdf11-concepts
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/ , which I like. The ntriplesString are
> however trivial to implement - and almost all implementations are probably
> going to have something like that anyway. I never liked much that the name
> doesn't include get - but I guess that is because it is a derived value and
> might need further calculations.
> The only contentious part is in BlankNode - so perhaps add a specialization
> of ntriplesString that clarifies the pitfalls here (as we did with equals).
> The long paragraphs of BlankNode on the top does not currently help to
> clarify this.
> See the simple implementation of BlankNode for one simple way to deal with
> those "non-ntriples-valid internal identifiers".
> Always keeping an internal UUID field or similar is another - implementations
> can decide on what is most natural to their implementations - they probably
> have already dealt with this already, although possibly not within their
> equivalent of the BlankNode class. The BlankNode is also free to keep an
> internal reference to the Graph or "local scope" and use that to generate
> identifiers.
> There is no requirement anywhere for Blank Node identifiers to always be
> re-generated in serialization - this is simply a liberty that is available. A
> serializer based on Commons RDF can still do that - he can simply ignore
> BlankNode.ntriplesString and create a temporary Map from internalIdentifier
> to b1, b2, etc. I do however not see why we need to REQUIRE a serializer do
> such an operation - that is taking this API beyond its scope and into "best
> practice" (in which case we would also deal with prefixes, preserving prefix
> names, canonicalizing URIs, etc).
> As an example of the current strength, I was able to write an N-triples
> serializer in simple by just concatenating the ntriplesString of the
> components from TripleImpl.toString and then just joining with \n:
> This is powerful - for nothing else it's great for debugging. I am not
> proposing to add ntriplesString() for Triple, as it might need to be much
> closer to the Graph - but at least RDFNode.toString() could have a default
> method that calls ntriplesString() (which is 200 times more useful than
> LiteralImpl 2bd85b1f529302f9 from Object.toString :) )
> {quote}
> afs:
> {quote}
> Some display string is useful but reading the contract for ntriplesString, it
> is not (just) for display purposes. c.f. Java toString. There is a different
> in escaping. I see that TripleImpl.toString does not do syntax escaping.
> Providing a readable RDFNode.toString() would separate the development dsplay
> concerns (e.g. no escapes maybe) from serialization concerns.
> Some RDF systems implement blank nodes from a sequence (e.g. Mulgara).
> Actually that policy can be quite convenient for debugging development.
> We could include N-Triples in commons-rdf but to me v1 should targetted as
> "use RDF data". Parsing and serialization is the concern of the
> implementation. The simple impl is one such example, not a new RDF system (is
> it?:-)
> {quote}
> ansell:
> {quote}
> I commented on the pull request to remove some of the tests that test or rely
> on the BlankNode internal identifier structure, particularly that it be a
> valid n-triples identifier. However, those tests made it into the merged
> version because it was otherwise basically okay and we are continually
> evolving anyway so there is no need to have perfect pull requests at this
> stage. I will review and merge #55 and then work on any further cases that we
> may not be testing for yet.
> I am all for defining/clarifying the contract for .toString in the API, even
> if it says that there is no specific escaping or formatting done on the
> output of .toString.
> Supporting N-Triples in the base API seems to be natural for two reasons to
> me. Firstly, it is the simplest syntax, so it doesn't require any particular
> optimisations and Triples can be streamed out without relying on a particular
> framework or serialiser. Secondly, for a long time it has been the sole
> established test case format for RDF, although it is defined on its own for
> RDF-1.1, so it is a natural single serialisation to support.
> As long as the output of ntriplesString is defined to be implementation and
> local scope specific for BlankNodes (no confusion with IRI or Literal), I am
> fine with having it. Given the number of times the BlankNode API references
> "local scope" right now, we are unlikely to have more users commenting that
> it is unusual than we already have had for the last 10 years with RDF-1.0.
> {quote}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
