- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 15:11:41 +0100
- To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Dave Beckett wrote:
>
> In case #1 (empty element) since rdf:ID points to the target
> resource, adding rdf:resource as well would have two statement
> objects which does not make sense.
I'm not following you here Dave.
<rdf:Description>
<foo:bar rdf:ID="rs">foobar</foo:bar>
</rdf:Desscription>
is clearly legal and the rdf:ID attribute defines the URI of the refied
statement the property represents. The question that arises is whether
<rdf:Description>
<foo:bar rdf:resource="http://foo/" rdf:ID="rs"/>
</rdf:Description>
is legal, with again the rdf:ID attribute defining the URI of the reifed
statement. It does seem a bit irregular to allow the use of an rdf:ID
attribute to identify the reifed statement in the case where the object
is a literal, but not in the case where it is a resource. And strictly
speaking, the grammar does not rule it out as the rdf:resource attribute
matches the idAboutAttr? in the production and the rdf:ID attribute
matches the propAttr*.
Brian
Received on Monday, 21 May 2001 10:12:15 UTC