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: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 12:07:21 -0400
To: "Aaron Swartz" <me@aaronsw.com>
Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>, "RDF-Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OE32Og7xJ4Yo5ofpz760000207f@hotmail.com>
Aaron,

Thanks for your answers and
sorry for somewhat  cluttered questions :-)
I will try to be more specific.

> > I hope you do not mean that "duplicate uses of the same rdf:about are
> > not allowed". :-)
>
> No, sorry if there was confusion. I meant that they were
> semantically equivalent -- i.e. that there is no special
> semantics implied by using an ID attribute. They clearly are not
> syntactically equivalent, nor are the syntactic rules about IDs
> changed. I hope this makes sense, please let me know if I'm not
> being clear.

Yes, this is clear now. Originally I wrongly understood that you
are suggesting to deprecate (suppress) one of them and that was unclear.

<--Uche said:
|> I agree with this, except that perhaps rdf:ID should simply be
suppressed.
Aaron said:
| I'd like that, but I don't see how to do it within the constraints of our
charter.
-->


> >>>   <daml:Class rdf:about="#Person"/>
....
> >>>   <daml:Class rdf:resource="#Person"/>
...
> One defines #Person as the subject, the other as the object.

Wow! this is very intuitive indeed. Why did not I guess it? :-))
There is still one more thing for which I would very much
appreciate some help:
Can you suggest a triple (or N3) representation for this fragment:

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


Thanks,

--Nikita.
Received on Monday, 23 July 2001 12:59:26 GMT

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