W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > July 2001

Re: new issue from rdf-interest

From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 00:29:49 -0500
Cc: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Message-Id: <20010715052950.WTDK27041.femail19.sdc1.sfba.home.com@localhost>
Oh, and to get my positions on these issues on the record:

>   <rdf:Description rdf:Description="foo"/>


>   <rdf:Description>
>     <rdf:Description>foo</rdf:Description>
>   </rdf:Description>


>   <rdf:Description>
>     <rdf:Bag>foobar</rdf:Bag>
>   </rdf:Description>

Well-formed document, but may not meet higher-level constraints.

_:anon rdf:Bag "foobar" .

>   <rdf:Description rdf:aboutEachPrefix="foo"/>
>     <foo:bar>foobar</foo:bar>
>   </rdf:Description>

As far as I know, use of aboutEachPrefix is illegal.

> Also, he is questioning our resolution of:
>   <rdf:_1>
>     <foo:bar>foobar</foo:bar>
>   </rdf:_1>

Well-formed document, but may not meet higher-level constraints.

_:anon rdf:type rdf:_1 .
_:anon foo:bar "foobar" .

If my resolutions seem weird, it is because I see a difference 
between strictly syntactical items in the RDF namespace, and 
those which appear in the model. (Syntactical items are illegal 
when found out of place, model items are not.) I wish these two 
groups were separated better (i.e. model ones in the schema 
namespace) but I don't think it would be a good idea to modify 
namespaces now. However, I do ask that in drafts we put 
together, the difference between these two groups is clear.

       "Aaron Swartz"      |              The Semantic Web
  <mailto:me@aaronsw.com>  |  <http://logicerror.com/semanticWeb-long>
<http://www.aaronsw.com/> |        i'm working to make it happen
Received on Sunday, 15 July 2001 01:29:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:02 UTC