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

Re: rdfms-graph: Food for thought

From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 20:16:19 -0500
Cc: "Stephen Petschulat/CanWest/IBM" <spetschu@ca.ibm.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
Message-Id: <20010717011621.BDIN23117.femail17.sdc1.sfba.home.com@localhost>
On Monday, July 16, 2001, at 02:48  PM, Graham Klyne wrote:

>  E.g. when exchanging RDF between systems (the reason for 
> standardization), do we really want to specify that the 
> existence of a node, without properties, is significant?  If 
> so, we must define the significance, and that looks awkward to 
> me.

Can you explain why this seems awkward to you? It seems like a 
perfectly reasonable thing to do to me.

The alternative seems to declare that:

<rdf:Description rdf:about="foo" />

means:

<foo> rdf:type rdfs:Resource .

which seems even more awkward.

--
       "Aaron Swartz"      | ...schoolyard subversion...
  <mailto:me@aaronsw.com>  |  <http://aaronsw.com/school/>
<http://www.aaronsw.com/> | because school makes kids dumb
Received on Monday, 16 July 2001 21:16:30 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:38:11 EDT