W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2003

Re: Options for dealing with IDs

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 09:01:02 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030108084510.089d4d38@localhost>
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, dave beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

At 21:27 07/01/2003 +0100, Chris Lilley wrote:

[...]


>TB> 2. What's the existence proof of a deployed vocabulary that has an ID
>TB> attribute that's not named "id"?
>
>RDF/XML - its called ID.

I'm not sure that's quite right.  Dave, would you like to check I've got 
this right.

In what I say here, I'm referring to RDFCore's clarification of the RDF 
specs which are still at the WD stage.

Whilst RDFCore is encouraging the use of qualified attribues, i.e rdf:ID, 
the attribute ID is allowed on elements in the rdf namespace.  Thus

   <rdf:Description ID="foo">

is legal.  However, that ID attribute is not an ID in the DTD sense of the 
word.  I believe this was a decision taken by the original RDF WG on the 
grounds that an element can have other similar ID attributes such as 
bagID.  Hmm, thinking about it, I wonder if that is why they named it ID 
instead of id.

Please note also, that in the case of a document with mime-type rdf+xml, 
the fragment identifier #foo does *NOT* denote the element with ID 
attribute whose value is "foo".  It denotes the resource described by that 
element.

Brian
Received on Wednesday, 8 January 2003 04:00:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:15 GMT