W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > December 2002

Re: RDF testcase rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema/test004.rdf

From: Chet Murthy <chet@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 14:48:30 -0500
Message-Id: <200212021948.gB2JmUKT002674@nautilus-chet.watson.ibm.com>
To: Chet Murthy <chet@watson.ibm.com>
cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, Dave.Beckett@bristol.ac.uk


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