At 05:16 PM 7/5/01 +0100, Brian McBride wrote: > > 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? I'm not convinced that this particular "provenance" issue should be bound so deeply in the core of RDF, but *if* this distinction is felt to be needed then the handling suggested seems about right to me. #g ------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Klyne Baltimore Technologies Strategic Research Content Security Group <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com> <http://www.mimesweeper.com> <http://www.baltimore.com> ------------------------------------------------------------Received on Thursday, 5 July 2001 16:46:22 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:38:06 EDT