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

Re: Literals as subjects, labels for nodes

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 16:43:18 +0100
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <27698.1003246998@tatooine.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
>>>Pat Hayes said:

<snip/>

> 1. Provide a way to allow two different occurrences of the same 
> literal to be distinguished in the syntax. (must-do)

If this is a requirement of the MT, do you require RDF/XML 1.0 to
generate such models?

i.e. should
  <?xml version="1.0"?>
  <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
	   xmlns:ex="http://example.org/properties/">
    <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.org/">
      <ex:foo>blah</ex:foo>
      <ex:bar>blah</ex:bar>
    </rdf:Description>
  </rdf:RDF>

generate
  <http://example.org/> <http://example.org/properties/foo> _id1:"blah" .
  <http://example.org/> <http://example.org/properties/bar> _id2:"blah" .

rather than
  <http://example.org/> <http://example.org/properties/foo> "blah" .
  <http://example.org/> <http://example.org/properties/bar> "blah" .

?


> 2. Allow literals as subjects. (optional)

I'm assuming this is optional but recommended?

And RDF/XML 1.0 continues to be unable to generate such models; which
we can record in the syntax doc if/when we make this decision.


<snip/>

Thanks; that was the explanation I was looking for.  Should get
people thinking :)

I suggest these two things, especially #1, are substantial and need
discussion and WG consensus.  This could wait till the next
version of the MT working draft is ready for us to review.  Which is
real soon, yeah?

Dave
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2001 11:43:22 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:41:04 EDT