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

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

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 13:38:02 +0100
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010524133100.046c2010@joy.songbird.com>
To: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
Cc: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
I'm inclined to agree with Aaron on this.

Also noting DanC's comment about balancing the needs of the future against 
the needs of the past (can't find the exact quote, but I noted the gist).

#g
--

At 03:07 PM 5/23/01 -0700, you wrote:
>Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk> 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.
>
>Sorry for not being clear, but I see a very good reason for this.
>
>It seems that consensus suggests that:
>
><rdf:Description>
>   <propName />
></rdf:Description
>
>should result in an empty literal for the value of propName. In such a case,
>something like:
>
><rdf:Description>
>    <propName rdf:ID="foo" />
></rdf:Description>
>
>could only be understood as assigning foo to the reification of the
>statement. Similarly,
>
><rdf:Description>
>    <propName rdf:ID="foo" rdf:resource="bar"/>
></rdf:Description>
>
>would also assign foo the the reification of the statement.
>
>Certainly this does change the meaning, but it changes it to be more
>consistent and brings it in line with what (IMO) the majority of RDF authors
>expect. I doubt that many (if any) RDF authors understand the current
>wackiness and even fewer have built documents on it. I think in this case we
>can expend the effort needed to fix this rather large mistake in the syntax.
>
>--
>[ Aaron Swartz | me@aaronsw.com | http://www.aaronsw.com ]

------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne                    Baltimore Technologies
Strategic Research              Content Security Group
<Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>    <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
                                 <http://www.baltimore.com>
------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2001 10:46:06 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:35:51 EDT