W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > May 2003

Re: What's the difference? rdf:about, owl:sameIndividualAs

From: Richard H. McCullough <rhm@cdepot.net>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 00:52:09 -0700
Message-ID: <005701c31ddc$0bc18b70$bd7ba8c0@rhm8200>
To: <jimbobbs@hotmail.com>, <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>

1. I don't know why W3C doesn't stop *talking* about approving
a better language, and actually *approve* one (or more),
for example, N3 and/or MKR.
Everywhere I look, including most W3C documents, examples
use some form of "triple" notation because it is easier to read and

2. Both N3 and MKR have a better syntax for a List.
MKR uses a comma separator, with square brackets for grouping 
*if necessary*.  (Brackets are optional to preserve the "English-like" 
flavor of MKR.)  This is the list notation used in many modern 
programming languages.  A "triple" notation could use angle brackets 
and a comma separator.

3. Using Qnames instead of URIs is essential for easy reading. 
URIs should appear *only* in xmlns declarations.

Dick McCullough
knowledge := man do identify od existent done;
knowledge haspart proposition list;

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jimmy Cerra" <jimbobbs@hotmail.com>
To: "'Richard H. McCullough'" <rhm@cdepot.net>; <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 11:42 PM
Subject: RE: What's the difference? rdf:about, owl:sameIndividualAs

> > I would add the following to the "confusing" list:
> >     rdf:ID
> >     rdf:Description
> I agree.  The attribute, rdf:ID, seems to be redundant and only in the
> spec for backwards compatibility.  For instance, "rdf:ID='foo'" is the
> same as "rdf:about='#foo'", right?
> >     rdf:resource
> I disagree, as that attribute provides a sort-of opposite for rdf:about,
> where rdf:about identifies a subject and rdf:resource identifies an
> object ("linguistically" not "object-orientedly").
> >     rdf:parseType
> Could the concept for rdf:parseType be better expressed as a processing
> instruction?  After all, it changes how a fragment of the serialized xml
> is processed (between RDF and non-RDF for instance).
> > From a user's point of view, I think it's preferable to use
> > only simple constructs like
> >     X  individualOf  Z
> >     Y  subClassOf   Z
> > where X,Y,Z are Qnames.
> I am designing a markup language, which uses serialized RDF, for an
> internal application.  I think that the RDF sections will use a
> restricted subset of the official specification.  Perhaps two or three
> different versions of RDF/XML would be helpful - each with greater
> restrictions (such as limited/no properties-as-attributes, no
> "parseType" attributes, etc.)?
> --
> Jimmy Cerra
Received on Monday, 19 May 2003 03:55:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:40 UTC