- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 17:16:13 +0100
- To: Ron Daniel <rdaniel@interwoven.com>
- CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Hi Ron, Ron Daniel wrote: [...] > The idea of an isDefinedBy predicate has been mentioned. > While that would be an extension of the 1.0 M&S, and > thus out of scope for the clarification document, if we > combine rdf:ID and rdf:about now, we won't be able to add > such a thing later. I wasn't quite sure what you meant here. If the WG were to decide that the triples generated with rdf:ID and an rdf:about were identical, would that tie the hands of a future WG? > > Is it important to add such a thing? Don't know, but I > do know of at least one situation where I've made use > of the distinction the M&S 1.0 spec makes between the > two. [...] > So note that the rdf:about attribute was used above. This was > to explicitly indicate that the in-line description was NOT > the authoritative description of the GR resource. The PRISM > spec says that when you do create a document that IS the > authoritative definition of that resource, the rdf:ID > attribute must be used instead. A very interesting example. Seems like this gets into (shuts eyes, grimaces, holds breath) provenance and reification. Does a PRISM processor need to store the fact that a triple was generated from description element with an rdf:about attribute rather than an rdf:ID attribute. Would generating isDefinedIn be enough to capture the requisite information? Does generating an isDefinedIn contribute towards capturing the information? Brian
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2001 12:18:37 UTC