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

RE: Is <Description> redundant?

From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 22:44:43 -0500
To: "Graham Klyne" <GK@Dial.pipex.com>, "RDF interest group" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003e01c06b00$5ab97710$0201a8c0@ne.mediaone.net>
Graham Klyne wrote:

>
> 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.

One remaining question. M&S states that a container is implicitly associated
with a Description (see between figures 8 and 9). Is this also true for a
typedNode? If without a bagID?

Jonathan Borden
The Open Healthcare Group
http://www.openhealth.org
Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2000 22:40:11 GMT

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