Re: Proposal for an additional 'link type' for rdf:type

Hi Ivan,

> I am not sure what you mean...

Well...I said the other day that if we were to prevent bnodes from
being created on <head> when @instanceof was present, we would have a
way to give a document a 'type' without needing to use the RDF
namespace. You replied that you didn't like 'exceptions'--in this case
an exception to the bnode/@instanceof rule. I then said that in a
sense you could say that there is no exception, because we already say
that a value for @about is 'implied', so all we'd need to say is that
it is this 'implied' @about that is used by @instanceof.

So all I'm asking now is whether you are happy with that. :)


> In any case, I think the precise statement is that @about="" is added to
> <head> _unless_ the user adds it explicitly. Ie, if the user adds a,
> say, @about="[_:x]" to <head>, than that will prevail...

Sure, but the issue to clarify is how this interacts with @instanceof
and @rel; at the moment a bnode is created if no @about attribute is
present, so we need to be explicit that in the case of <head> an
@about has actually been 'created'. The easiest way to do this would
be for the schemas and DTDs to provide a default value for @about on
<head>. (Although we would still need to put this into the processing
prose.)

Regards,

Mark

-- 
  Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer

  mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
  http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com

  standards. innovation.

Received on Thursday, 4 October 2007 10:11:52 UTC