Pat Hayes asked: > What would rdf:value mean if it wasnt > pointing to a literal? For example what relationship between _:x and > _:y would this state: > _:x rdf:value _:y . > _:y rdf:value "10" . To bring back an example from olden times, you need one more statement: <document> <dc:subject> _:x and the interpretation is that <document> <dc:subject> "10" is the most acceptable loss of information if one must simplify (perhaps radically) the model for some reason and one has no application-specific knowledge of what to keep and what to delete. So, to answer your question, _:x rdf:value "10" is the abbreviation of your model above that best preserves its intent. It would still be the best if _:x had started with 10k other properties. Search for 'dumb-down rule' on Google for metadata specs where this convention has been used. Assumed constraints are that there should only be one rdf:value from a node. Assumption is that the chain of rdf:values ends in a string. If the <document> has multiple <dc:subject> properties, they SHOULD all have different strings at the end of the rdf:value chains. RonReceived on Thursday, 7 February 2002 12:17:34 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:45:07 EDT