- From: Damian Steer <damste@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 10:26:09 +0100
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Sandro Hawke wrote: |>Actually, I think I'll disagree with myself before anyone else does. |>Taking Dan's point, the ordering could well be IFP > no URI/IFP > URI |>because the URI is in no way a property of the described object whereas |>all other properties are. | | | Why isn't something's URI an IFP property of the thing? TimBL calls | that property log:uri, I think. For a while, I generalized it | slightly to u:uname [1]. | | -- sandro | | [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/12/uname/ Hmm. Why not use rdf:resource and rdf:about (being samePropertyAs)? Backwards compatible, and parsers will just need to de-bless those attributes. For example: <rdf:Description newrdf:about="http://ex.com/1"> ~ <a:prop newrdf:resource="http://ex.com/2"/> </rdf:Description> produces what you want. s/newrdf/rdf/. Damian -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFBChQxAyLCB+mTtykRApzZAJ0bYLuIF0h/S7U1+CT97vwtPZ6FLACg2vcx CLEM2dyc5Qm36+WyaDj82gw= =llMw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Friday, 30 July 2004 05:26:24 UTC