Re: silly question about rdf:about

>>>Aaron Swartz said:
> While you're at it, please replace rdf:Description with rdfs:Resource so
> that it uses the same typedNode construction as everything else.

but that is totally redundant; since all nodes are implicitly of type
resource by the RDF Schema rules.

You need a simple way to say "here is a node, no more types known
apart from the implicit resource one" which is rdf:Description.
Changing that form gives no substantial user benefit.

See http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Syntax
for examples of such things using non-'rdf:type'd nodes.

Dave