W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > July 2001

Re: Attention Users! (2 in a series)

From: Nikita Ogievetsky <nogievet@cogx.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 16:43:55 -0400
To: "Uche Ogbuji" <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>, "Aaron Swartz" <me@aaronsw.com>
Cc: "RDF-Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OE24SFsxf4yp8ARf3sl000096c9@hotmail.com>
> > 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.

Annotated DAML+OIL (March 2001) Ontology Markup
http://www.daml.org/2001/03/daml+oil-walkthru.html

Contains the following example markup:

<daml:Disjoint rdf:parseType="daml:collection">
  <daml:Class rdf:about="#Car"/>
  <daml:Class rdf:about="#Person"/>
  <daml:Class rdf:about="#Plant"/>
</daml:Disjoint>

Do you mean that this can be equivalently written like this:

<daml:Disjoint rdf:parseType="daml:collection">
  <daml:Class rdf:ID="#Car"/>
  <daml:Class rdf:ID="#Person"/>
  <daml:Class rdf:ID="#Plant"/>
</daml:Disjoint>


Or do you think that the above mentioned markup should be instead:

<daml:Disjoint rdf:parseType="daml:collection">
  <daml:Class rdf:resource="#Car"/>
  <daml:Class rdf:resource="#Person"/>
  <daml:Class rdf:resource="#Plant"/>
</daml:Disjoint>


> "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.
>

This would solve the above mentioned seams-to-me-to-be a problem ,
but I would rather leave rdf:ID and rdf:about redundancy in place.
I believe that there is some semantic value in rdf:ID serving as an explicit
anchor in controlled vocabulary.

> > 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
>
>
>
>

--Nikita.

----------------------------------------------------------
Nikita Ogievetsky               Cogitech Inc
XML/XSLT/XLink/TopicMaps   Consultant
nogievet@cogx.com   --   (917) 406-8734
http://www.cogx.com     Cogito Ergo XML
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2001 16:47:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:50 GMT