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

rdf:about, rdf:ID and anonymous resources

From: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <pachampi@caramail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 09:16:26 -0400
To: "McBride, Brian" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-ID: <970668825031919@caramail.com>
From : "McBride, Brian" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
> What I was trying to say to Tim was there was nothing to 
stop
> him doing what he suggested, but that he might also 
consider
> the alternative of adding the fragment id's automatically.

Once we are on the subject,
I still have some problem with that ID thing.

What exactly is the point of writing, in a file foo.rdf
 <rdf:Description ID="bar">
As I understand it, it "defines" the resource
 foo.rdf#rdf
So, why not simply write
 <rdf:Description about="#bar">
Again, as I understand it, this is because the fragment 
id "bar" does not exist in the file foo.rdf,
so rdf:ID allows to define AND describe it.

Well, the fragment id "bar" does not exist in foo.rdf. So 
what ? Most of the time, rdf:ID is used (as far as I know) 
for classes or properties: resources that are abstract by 
essence, that can not be retrieved anyway ! Naming them 
foo.rdf#bar or whatever is nothing but a convention.

Defining a fragment id allows the URI of the resource to 
return the description of the resource ; but the 
description is a PROPERTY of the resource, not the resource 
itself. The metaporperty rdfs:isDefinedBy is intended for 
that, and XPointer allows to point to any rdf;Description 
tag in a more standard way.

 T(rdfs:isDefinedBy, my_resource, foo.rdf#xpointer(...))

So, did I miss something about rdf:ID ?

 Pierre-Antoine
______________________________________________________
Bote aux lettres - Caramail - http://www.caramail.com
Received on Wednesday, 4 October 2000 09:16:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:44 GMT