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

2001-09-28#6: container test4 repost

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 12:24:39 +0100
To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDAEDOCCAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>


The URL for the disputed test is
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema/
test004.rdf

The crucial part being:

  <rdf:li rdf:ID="e4" foo:bar="foobar" />

This matches both

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Jun/att-0021/00-part#232

"If the ID attribute is given it is the identifier of this new resource."

and the contradictory

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Jun/att-0021/00-part#214

"The value of the ID attribute, if specified, is the identifier for the
resource that represents the reification of the statement."

This may be in scope for the issue #rdfms-not-id-and-resource-attr

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

If it isn't in scope, we could raise a new issue; personally I would extend
the scope if necessary.

The thread that DaveB and I alluded to at the teleconference was:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Aug/thread.html#116

where Dan expressed surpise at the test.

Certainly, the test has very little to do with containers.

Jeremy
Received on Monday, 1 October 2001 07:27:15 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:40:55 EDT