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

Re: Proposal for rdfms-not-id-and-resource-attr

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 11:56:43 +0100
Message-ID: <3B25F56B.8E2F8F7B@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
CC: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Hi Aaron,

DaveB is on holiday for a couple of weeks.  I don't think we can get closure
without Dave's participation.

Brian


Aaron Swartz wrote:
> 
> Now that we've wrapped up rdfms-empty-property-elements I suggest that it's
> time to finish rdfms-not-id-and-resource-attr. I hope I'm not stepping
> outside of my bounds here (as DaveB is really the issue owner) but I'd like
> to put forth a proposal.
> 
> I'd suggest that the example in the issues list:
> 
>     <rdf:Description>
>       <foo:bar rdf:ID="foobar" rdf:resource="http://foobar"/>
>     </rdf:Description>
> 
> be interpreted as:
> 
>     _:genid foo:bar <http://foobar> .
>     <#foobar> rdf:subject _:genid .
>     <#foobar> rdf:predicate foo:bar .
>     <#foobar> rdf:object <http://foobar> .
> 
> DaveB, in his original proposal[1], decided that ID and resource could not
> be used because in an empty XML element, ID pointed to the object of the
> element. He later said[2] that the issue could be looked at again if
> empty-property-elements were decided differently. As they are now decided to
> eliminate the portion of the spec that cause the confusion, I suggest that
> the interpretation of ID be changed to fit with the test case above.
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001May/0088.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001May/0164.html
> 
> --
> [ :name "Aaron Swartz" ] is dc:author of <> .
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2001 06:58:23 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:37:05 EDT