W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > December 2000

Is <Description> redundant?

From: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:10:32 +0000
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20001220120126.00b4fe70@pop.dial.pipex.com>
To: RDF interest group <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
I has occurred to me that the "third basic abbreviation" form for RDF in 
XML, coupled with the RDF schema definition of rdfs:Resource, renders the 
<rdf:Description> element of RDF redundant.

Noting that any RDF resource is an instance of rdfs:Resource, it occurs to 
me that _any_ <rdf:Description> element can be equivalently described as:

     <rdfs:Resource>
       (content of description)
     </rdfs:Resource>

One is not prevented from placing <rdf:type> arcs in the description:  this 
must be allowed anyway to describe instances of multiple classes.

#g
------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2000 08:58:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:47 GMT