W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > July 2002

rdfms-syntax-incomplete

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 19:48:10 +0100
To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CEECKEAMDAJDDEDGJNBEMEDBCAAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


Proposal in brief:

- use attribute rdf:node to associate node identifiers with blank nodes.
- file scoped identifier.
- any XML string is legal blank node identifier.

Full resolution:
- reopen issue rdfms-syntax-incomplete
- add an attribute rdf:node to the RDF/XML syntax.
- modify the syntax to permit rdf:node in place of rdf:about.
- such a use associates the value of the attribute as a file scoped
identifier for the blank node
- modify the syntax to permit rdf:node in place of rdf:resource.
- such a use associates the value of the attribute as a file scoped
identifier for the blank node
- any two blank nodes arising from the same RDF/XML file with the same
identifier are the same blank node
- action syntax editor to update the document to reflect this
- rdf:node is not permitted as an element name in RDF/XML
- action jjc to produce test cases
- action daveb to update rdfms-names-use to reflect rdf:node
- close issue


======

The chair was keen that we avoid too much discussion. I would like to
highlight the choicepoints.

+ use of attribute rather than pseudoURI

One possibility was to use "_:label" in place of urirefs on the rdf:about
and rdf:resource attributes. People said they did not like this idea. It
would have less clarity but greater backward compatibility.

+ use of file scope rather than global scode node identifiers

The scope of the identifiers is the same as the scope of identifiers in
N-triples, i.e. the file. Some use cases point to a need for global scope
blank node identifiers (e.g. talking about a node within a graph for later
updates to the graph). This seems to me to be a separate issue, and
addressing it would constitute a greater change to RDF. (global scope  means
world-wide, like uris).

+ use of one attributes for both subject and object position rather than
two.

The current syntax uses two attributes for URI refs. rdf:about on typed
nodes and descriptions and rdf:resource on property elements. Since these
two contexts are distinct there is no ambiguity in using the same attribute
name for both. It may be less confusing to have rdf:aboutNodeIdentifier and
rdf:resourceNodeIdentifier for the two different roles.

+ choice of a short attribute name

rdf:node seemed about the shortest clear name for the attribute.



Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 16 July 2002 14:48:28 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:49:51 EDT