- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@baltimore.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 15:42:11 +0100
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 03:48 PM 7/14/01 +0100, Brian McBride wrote: >Jeremy Carroll in > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Jul/0041.html > >has raised some test cases we ought to clarify: [... (Brian's full message below)] I think we should be wary about going down the road of specifying an interpretation for non-valid RDF syntax. Thus, I think the main issue here is to decide whether or not they are reasonably treated as valid RDF. I have a concern about rdf:Description used as a property: it's not clear to me that the URI corresponding to rdf:Description should be interpreted as a class, so it's appearance in <rdf:Description> <foo:bar>foobar</foo:bar> </rdf:Description> would be a syntactic way of saying "there is a resource of unknown type...". Consider: <rdf:Description about="http://example.org/res"> <foo:bar>foobar</foo:bar> </rdf:Description> and <rdfs:Resource about="http://example.org/res"> <foo:bar>foobar</foo:bar> </rdfs:Resource> When RDF schema is taken into account, I think these both say the same thing, and in particular that the resource "http://example.org/res" has an rdf:type of rdfs:Resource. (I thought the "equivalence" of rdf:Description and rdfs:Resource had been noted as an issue, but I don't see it. See also: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Jan/0009.html) In the case of rdf:Bag, I don't know if we need to forbid anyone treating it as a property, though it doesn't seem to be an immediately helpful idea. #g -- At 03:48 PM 7/14/01 +0100, Brian McBride wrote: >Jeremy Carroll in > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Jul/0041.html > >has raised some test cases we ought to clarify: > > <rdf:Description rdf:Description="foo"/> > > <rdf:Description> > <rdf:Description>foo</rdf:Description> > </rdf:Description> > > <rdf:Description> > <rdf:Bag>foobar</rdf:Bag> > </rdf:Description> > > <rdf:Description rdf:aboutEachPrefix="foo"/> > <foo:bar>foobar</foo:bar> > </rdf:Description> > >Also, he is questioning our resolution of: > > <rdf:_1> > <foo:bar>foobar</foo:bar> > </rdf:_1> > >These are basically about what to do with names that are 'recognised' >as being part of the RDF namespace but appear out of context. I'll >add this as a new issue to the list. We probably ought to try to >give it some attention as it has been raised on rdf-interest. > >Brian ------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Klyne Baltimore Technologies Strategic Research Content Security Group <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com> <http://www.mimesweeper.com> <http://www.baltimore.com> ------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The information contained in this message is confidential and is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you have received this message in error or there are any problems please notify the originator immediately. The unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this message is strictly forbidden. Baltimore Technologies plc will not be liable for direct, special, indirect or consequential damages arising from alteration of the contents of this message by a third party or as a result of any virus being passed on. This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by Baltimore MIMEsweeper for Content Security threats, including computer viruses.
Received on Monday, 16 July 2001 10:51:45 UTC