W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > July to September 2001

Re: Attention Users! (2 in a series)

From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 13:09:53 -0600
Message-Id: <200107051909.f65J9r606310@localhost.local>
To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
cc: RDF-Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
> UNDER DISCUSSION: rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about
> 
> The Working Group is considering two proposals:
> 
> Proposal 1: http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-
> tests/rdfcore/rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about/
> Effectively make rdf:ID and rdf:about equivalent.

"Usage of an rdf:ID attribute to identify the subject of a description, is 
equivalent to usage of an rdf:about attribute with the same content,
except the content of the rdf:about attribute is prefixed by a '#' character 
and URI encoded."

shouldn't that be

"except the content of the rdf:ID attribute"?

I agree with this, except that perhaps rdf:ID should simply be suppressed.


> Proposal 2: No writeup available yet
> Generate rdfs:isDefinedBy triples when rdf:ID is used.

Interesting.  I'll have to give this some thought.  A write-up with examples 
would be quite helpful.


> Should literals  be considered a type of resource, possibly 
> "data:" URIs rather than a special case in the model?

I think this is a good idea, as long as it can be implicit and one is not 
forced to write

<prop rdf:resource="data:quopri:foo"/>

instead of

<prop>foo</prop>


> What should we do about xml:lang?
> 
>   - Keep it a special case in the model (a property of a literal)?
>   - Use some sort of triple or other model-based system for it?
>   - Throw it out altogether?

I'd prefer to see a special RDF property for it, i.e. the second option.


> Are there issues that you would like to see RDF Core address 
> right away? Please let us know:

Clarifying rdf:value.  I change my mind about what it *really* means everytime 
I read the spec or see an example.  If it isn't in the grammar because it's 
merely an RDF property, then this should be clearly explained, and preferably 
the semantics of this property should be elucidated.

I know there's already an issue open for this.  I just think it's a matter of 
priority because of the numerous interpretations.


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                               Principal Consultant
uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com               +1 303 583 9900 x 101
Fourthought, Inc.                         http://Fourthought.com 
4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA
XML strategy, XML tools (http://4Suite.org), knowledge management
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2001 15:11:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:28 GMT