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

Re: Attention Users! (2 in a series)

From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 17:30:20 -0600
Message-Id: <200107052330.f65NUKb07628@localhost.local>
To: "Nikita Ogievetsky" <nogievet@cogx.com>
cc: "Aaron Swartz" <me@aaronsw.com>, "RDF-Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
> > > 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>

Yes.


> 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>

No, these say different things.  In this latter case, you would still need to 
define an <rdf:Resource ID="Car"/> somewhere in the doc, which would serve as 
the object of the statement.


> > "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.

OK.  I can easily bend to this.


-- 
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
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2001 19:32:03 GMT

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