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: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 11:31:46 +0100
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
CC: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
Message-ID: <19571.990181906@tatooine.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
>>>Aaron Swartz said:
> 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.

<snip/>

No - the original issue had a specific question which I refered to, quoted,
and answered in my message:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001May/0088.html
I was not answering the different issue above.

<snip/>

> 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.

I feel that removing this existing syntax is too much of a change,
although I did give my misgivings about its function and clarity in
my message.

In IRC later, Aaron noted there was a way to do what he wanted
  http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfig/2001-05-17.html#T22-06-32
which was also in the original issue description

Dave
Received on Friday, 18 May 2001 06:31:47 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:35:49 EDT