- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 18:37:36 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- cc: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, RDF-Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Dave Beckett wrote: > >>>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. Your argument can be flipped around: having a separate, syntax only construct, rdf:Description, adds only confusion and complexity. Every rdf:Description element implicitly tells us about some Resource, so we might reasonable remove (or downplay in examples etc.) rdf:Description, since it adds nothing to the syntax except for the need to be explained. I'm not saying we *should* drop it, only that I try to avoid it when writing RDF/XML. Dan
Received on Sunday, 7 April 2002 18:37:42 UTC