W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > July 2001

Re: more about rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 17:16:13 +0100
Message-ID: <3B4492CD.4710B450@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Ron Daniel <rdaniel@interwoven.com>
CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Hi Ron,

Ron Daniel wrote:
[...]

> The idea of an isDefinedBy predicate has been mentioned.
> While that would be an extension of the 1.0 M&S, and
> thus out of scope for the clarification document, if we
> combine rdf:ID and rdf:about now, we won't be able to add
> such a thing later.

I wasn't quite sure what you meant here.  If the WG were to
decide that the triples generated with rdf:ID and an rdf:about
were identical, would that tie the hands of a future WG?

> 
> Is it important to add such a thing? Don't know, but I
> do know of at least one situation where I've made use
> of the distinction the M&S 1.0 spec makes between the
> two.

[...]

> So note that the rdf:about attribute was used above. This was
> to explicitly indicate that the in-line description was NOT
> the authoritative description of the GR resource. The PRISM
> spec says that when you do create a document that IS the
> authoritative definition of that resource, the rdf:ID
> attribute must be used instead.

A very interesting example.  Seems like this gets into (shuts eyes,
grimaces, holds breath) provenance and reification.  Does a PRISM
processor need to store the fact that a triple was generated
from description element with an rdf:about attribute rather than
an rdf:ID attribute.  Would generating isDefinedIn be enough
to capture the requisite information?  Does generating an
isDefinedIn contribute towards capturing the information?

Brian
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2001 12:18:37 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:38:06 EDT