- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 02:39:34 +0100
- To: "Stephen Cranefield" <SCranefield@infoscience.otago.ac.nz>
- Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> I'm not sure if you are suggesting that the use of label solves > the problem, or whether it is the explicit URI that is the point > of your example. The explicit URI! > If it's the explicit URI used to identify the resource, then yes, > that makes the concept's URI independent of the schema > location, but that doesn't seem to be common practice. [...] > Does this mean that RDF Schema is a bad example to follow? > If so, what is the current best practice? Yes, RDF Schema is a bad example to follow, and yes, the "ID" thing is a bit of broken markup, but it was put in because of the worries about the fact that FragmentIDs on XML languages always reference whatever the XML ID in that language is. Of course, RDF works in such a way that this is pointless, but obviously this wasn't caught early enough to purge it from the specification. TimBL discusses it a bit at the bottom of [1]. I'd advise people to always use "rdf:about" as a best current practice. [1] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Notation3 -- Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer @prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> . :Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Monday, 13 August 2001 21:39:23 UTC