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

Re: Attention Users! (2 in a series)

From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 15:18:57 -0500
Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>, "RDF-Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <dorait@msn.com>
To: "Uche Ogbuji" <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>
Message-Id: <20010708201859.REYX22602.femail17.sdc1.sfba.home.com@localhost>
On Friday, July 6, 2001, at 10:40  AM, Uche Ogbuji wrote:

> "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"?

Hmm, how about:

"Usage of an rdf:ID attribute to identify the subject of a 
description, is
equivalent to usage of an rdf:about attribute with the the '#' 
character followed by the URI-encoded form of the content rdf:ID 
attribute."

http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-
tests/rdfcore/rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about/

> I agree with this, except that perhaps rdf:ID should simply be 
> suppressed.

I'd like that, but I don't see how to do it within the 
constraints of our charter.

>> 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.

Basically, it'd be something like:

<http://example.org/test1.rdf#foo> rdfs:isDefinedBy 
<http://example.org/test1.rdf> .

In addition to the usual stuff.

>> 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>

Of course!

>> 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.

Thanks, I've told the WG about this.

See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0051

--
       "Aaron Swartz"      |           Blogspace
  <mailto:me@aaronsw.com>  |  <http://blogspace.com/about/>
<http://www.aaronsw.com/> |     weaving the two-way web
Received on Sunday, 8 July 2001 16:19:06 GMT

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