On 12 Nov 2011, at 23:06, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: > Following this scenario, we could say that <http://n.w3.org/rdf/type> and <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> are the same node No, they will always be different nodes, but it could be made so that in RDF 2.0 / SPARQL 2.0, the query SELECT * WHERE { ?s a ?o } would match either of these nodes. This could be achieved in various ways, for example by baking the equivalence of these terms into the basic RDF 2.0 semantics. If we *want* to have shorter IRIs for basic RDF/RDFS/OWL terms, then surely we can find some way to make it work, no? And surely, laying some initial non-normative groundwork *now* will help a lot to prepare for a normative introduction of these IRIs in a future round of RDF/SPARQL standardization a few years down the road. > (But I'll go along with it if SELECT (SUM(?salary) AS ?checkAmount) { ?who foaf:given_name "eric" ; mit:salary ?salary } doubles my salary.) (If you want a change in RDF that potentially doubles your salary, then anything that helps to align RDF with HTML and microdata is not a bad idea.) Best, RichardReceived on Sunday, 13 November 2011 16:45:04 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:46 GMT