- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 17:19:09 +0100
- To: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
This was sent to www-rdf-comments. Brian Thomas Enzi wrote: > > Dear members of the working group, > > regarding to one of the points that are "under discussion" I wanted to > comment that from my point of view there is a need of differentiating > between rdf:ID and rdf:about as Aaron's Proposal 2. > > Within the project that I am into I have explicitly used rdf:ID to specify that > the description of a resource has got this ID. In contrast to rdf:ID in my opinion > rdf:about only specifies that the following description describes the resource identified > thereby but does not tell that now the description itself has got this ID. > (I think that when I use rdf:about with an ID (e.g. a urn) somewhere else has to be defined that the > resource that I describe is identified by this ID) > Please let me know if my point of view is wrong! > > see our RDF:XML Examples at http://nm.wu-wien.ac.at/universal/metadata > > best Regards > > Thomas Enzi thomas.enzi@wu-wien.ac.at > UNIVERSAL, European IST-Project > Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration, > Department of Information Systems - New Media Working Group > > >UNDER DISCUSSION: rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about > > >The Working Group is considering two proposals: > > >Proposal 1: http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf- > >tests/rdfcore/rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about/ > >Effectively make rdf:ID and rdf:about equivalent. > > >Proposal 2: No writeup available yet > >Generate rdfs:isDefinedBy triples when rdf:ID is used. > > >If you have an opinion on this issue, please let us know: > > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Thomas Enzi Thomas.Enzi@wu-wien.ac.at > Research Assistant, UNIVERSAL Project > Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration > Augasse 2-6, A-1090 Vienna, Austria > Tel: (+43-1) 31 336 x4417 > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2001 12:21:22 UTC