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

Re: Issue http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-not-id-and-resource-attr

From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 16:37:08 -0500
To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B729AEAD.BB51%aswartz@upclink.com>
Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk> wrote:

> The confusion is the different interpretation of rdf:ID in
> propertyElt when the element is empty / non-empty.

It was my understanding that the issue was the fact that statements using
resources as objects could not be reified. For example:

    <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
      <rdf:Description rdf:about="#bar">
        <e:someProperty rdf:ID="foo" rdf:resource="#baz" />

would be expected to create the triples:

<#bar> e:someProperty <#baz> .

<#foo> rdf:type rdf:Statement ;
       rdf:subject <#bar> ;
       rdf:property e:someProperty ;
       rdf:object <#baz> .

But the grammar does not allow this because of the (somewhat unexpected and
little-known) usage of ID to name a new property.

Along with Jan Grant's proposal for removing the creation of new resources
on empty propElts, I think that the use of ID to name them should also be
removed. Thus your option 2 would always be the case.

[ Aaron Swartz | me@aaronsw.com | http://www.aaronsw.com ]
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2001 17:37:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:48 UTC