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

Re: new issue from rdf-interest

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@baltimore.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 15:42:11 +0100
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010716151934.035b0140@joy.songbird.com>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 03:48 PM 7/14/01 +0100, Brian McBride wrote:
>Jeremy Carroll in
>
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Jul/0041.html
>
>has raised some test cases we ought to clarify:
[... (Brian's full message below)]

I think we should be wary about going down the road of specifying an 
interpretation for non-valid RDF syntax.

Thus, I think the main issue here is to decide whether or not they are 
reasonably treated as valid RDF.

I have a concern about rdf:Description used as a property:  it's not clear 
to me that the URI corresponding to rdf:Description should be interpreted 
as a class, so it's appearance in

   <rdf:Description>
     <foo:bar>foobar</foo:bar>
   </rdf:Description>

would be a syntactic way of saying "there is a resource of unknown type...".

Consider:

   <rdf:Description about="http://example.org/res">
     <foo:bar>foobar</foo:bar>
   </rdf:Description>

and

   <rdfs:Resource about="http://example.org/res">
     <foo:bar>foobar</foo:bar>
   </rdfs:Resource>

When RDF schema is taken into account, I think these both say the same 
thing, and in particular that the resource "http://example.org/res" has an 
rdf:type of rdfs:Resource.  (I thought the "equivalence" of rdf:Description 
and rdfs:Resource had been noted as an issue, but I don't see it.  See 
also: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Jan/0009.html)

In the case of rdf:Bag, I don't know if we need to forbid anyone treating 
it as a property, though it doesn't seem to be an immediately helpful idea.

#g
--

At 03:48 PM 7/14/01 +0100, Brian McBride wrote:
>Jeremy Carroll in
>
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Jul/0041.html
>
>has raised some test cases we ought to clarify:
>
>   <rdf:Description rdf:Description="foo"/>
>
>   <rdf:Description>
>     <rdf:Description>foo</rdf:Description>
>   </rdf:Description>
>
>   <rdf:Description>
>     <rdf:Bag>foobar</rdf:Bag>
>   </rdf:Description>
>
>   <rdf:Description rdf:aboutEachPrefix="foo"/>
>     <foo:bar>foobar</foo:bar>
>   </rdf:Description>
>
>Also, he is questioning our resolution of:
>
>   <rdf:_1>
>     <foo:bar>foobar</foo:bar>
>   </rdf:_1>
>
>These are basically about what to do with names that are 'recognised'
>as being part of the RDF namespace but appear out of context.  I'll
>add this as a new issue to the list.  We probably ought to try to
>give it some attention as it has been raised on rdf-interest.
>
>Brian

------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne                    Baltimore Technologies
Strategic Research              Content Security Group
<Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>    <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
                                 <http://www.baltimore.com>
------------------------------------------------------------



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this message is confidential and is intended 
for the addressee(s) only.  If you have received this message in error or 
there are any problems please notify the originator immediately.  The 
unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this message is 
strictly forbidden. Baltimore Technologies plc will not be liable for direct, 
special, indirect or consequential damages arising from alteration of the 
contents of this message by a third party or as a result of any virus being 
passed on.

This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by 
Baltimore MIMEsweeper for Content Security threats, including
computer viruses.
Received on Monday, 16 July 2001 10:51:45 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:38:10 EDT