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

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

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 21:39:20 +0100
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010705213552.03fdcec0@joy.songbird.com>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Ron Daniel <rdaniel@interwoven.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
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