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

Sergey Melnik wrote:
> 
> Currently, the concept of relative URIs is present in the M&S 1.0
> serialization syntax only, and is not reflected in the model in any way.
> That is, relative URIs is a just another "abbreviation feature" of the
> M&S syntax, and I'd like to emphasize that in the revised spec to avoid
> misconceptions.

Very well.

> As abbreviation features, relative URIs have nothing to
> do with the fragment IDs described in
> http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Model.html#Fragement (for example, a
> fragment ID in an RDF document does *not* refer to a portion of this
> document).

I disagree, but I don't think this point is directly
relevant to this issue.

> Therefore, IMO the axioms and benefits summarized by TimBL
> for HTML at above link do not seem to hold in the RDF world.
> 
> I feel strongly about not using relative URIs, especially given the
> parsing/editing complication (see prev. postings in this thread), and
> the problems associated with moving RDF documents from one location to
> another. However, I think keeping cleaned-up rdf:ID, rdf:about and
> relative URIs in the revised M&S syntax is essential for backward
> compatibility and is the least bloody compromise (sigh...) I'd just
> suggest to word it so the developers understand the pros and cons.

I'm happy to point out the pros and cons of using relative URIs.
But I would not be happy characterizing them as some sort
of "for backwards compatibility" feature, to be removed
at some later date.



-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/