In the subject testcase, there are two uses of rdf:ID. The first is to reify an edge; the second is the ID of a node (thus, no reification). <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:foo="http://foo/"> <foo:Bar> <rdf:li rdf:ID="e1">1</rdf:li> <rdf:li rdf:parseType="Literal">2</rdf:li> <rdf:li rdf:parseType="Resource"> <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://foo/Bar"/> </rdf:li> <rdf:li rdf:ID="e4" foo:bar="foobar"/> </foo:Bar> </rdf:RDF> It seems that by using the rdf:ID for two different purposes, we end up making it impossible to both name a node, and to reify it, in this syntax. Instead, one wonders if, just as with "bagID", it wouldn't make sense to use "edgeID" or some equivalent attribute-name, hence, <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:foo="http://foo/"> <foo:Bar> <rdf:li rdf:edgeID="e1">1</rdf:li> <rdf:li rdf:parseType="Literal">2</rdf:li> <rdf:li rdf:parseType="Resource"> <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://foo/Bar"/> </rdf:li> <rdf:li rdf:ID="e4" foo:bar="foobar"/> </foo:Bar> </rdf:RDF> so that the reified edge would be (manifestly) syntactically distinguished from a node with a specified name. --chet--Received on Monday, 2 December 2002 23:25:34 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:57 GMT