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

Re: Issue #rdfms-not-id-and-resource-attr

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 15:09:04 +0100
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
CC: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Art Barstow <barstow@w3.org>
Message-ID: <24714.990626944@tatooine.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
>>>Aaron Swartz said:
> Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
> 
> > What I've seen so far is an answer that says the spec doesn't allow it.
> > I feel that doesn't fully answer the issue raised.
> 
> I know that Dave seems to feel differently about this, but I see a simple
> solution to this and empty property elements:
> 
>  - Define an empty property element to be an empty literal
>  - Define an id and a resource to be the reification of the statement

We *can* do these things - i.e. changing the RDF/XML syntax but we
need good reasons.  Neatness is one but I feel it isn't strong enough
to counterpoint breaking existing parsers; make no mistake - this
would be a change in the meaning.

I feel we should be making changes additions, removals, modifications
that break existing code only if absolutely necessary for important
reasons such as removing ambiguity.

In this case we can write a better explanation of what is already
allowed in the syntax and there is already a way to do what is
required - make the property statement and give an ID for the reified
statement, so there is no requirement for any new syntax.

If this was RDF/XML syntax version 2 (no backwards compatibility
required) then we wouldn't be starting from here.

> [rdf/n3 examples deleted]

Dave
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2001 10:09:07 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:35:50 EDT