- From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
- Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 00:12:11 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: w3c rdfcore wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote: >> - ID claims to define an anchor ID, but it is not defined as an XML ID (and >> possibly cannot, because of interaction with bagID[2]) and the editor of the >> spec feels that it is not usable as such[3]. >> >> - While ID is in the syntax, it is not specified in the model, which means >> that an RDF document cannot be properly "round-tripped" which I feel is an >> important goal. > > I don't understand why any of these is a problem that > needs solving. How about a test case to show why it matters? For the first one is related to fragment issues, and referring to concepts inside of RDF documents. Since RDF chooses a non-standard definition of resource, its unclear how important this is. > At what level do you expect to "round-trip" RDF? > I expect it at the level of n-triples. rdf:ID > is indistinguishable from rdf:about at that level. Yes, that's my point. My argument is that if it has meaning, it should be distinguishable in the n-triples -- i.e. n-triples should not lose any meaning in the document. Thus, I want to clear up the meaning of rdf:id. > re anchor ID: how is XML ID-ness relevant? anchor IDs > are a MIME type thingy, not an XML thingy. See my first point. >> 1) Remove/Deprecate ID from the syntax. >> >> The Working Group could decide to remove ID from the syntax due to >> incompatibility/mistaken compatibility with XML IDs. > What incompatibility? URIs pointing to fragments of RDF documents (which can be sent as application/xml) refer to an XML element. RDF wants to have them refer to a concept. >> 2) Allow ID to create triples in the model. >> >> Sergey Melnik has suggested[4] that ID create an isDefinedBy triple. >> >> Cons: Requires processors to change their interpretation. >> >> I am willing to hear other proposals, but personally, I currently agree with >> proposal 2. > > I'm not against proposal 2, but I find it hard to justify > as a correction to the spec. It also creates a dependency > from RDF M&S to RDFS, where there is none now. I justify the correction as such: The spec talks about the "creation of a new resource". This is confused, and what they really mean is x (creation of a resource's official description or some such). X must be represented in the model to be useful to RDF developers and we have chosen this triple to represent it. -- Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>| my.info <http://www.aaronsw.com> | <http://my.theinfo.org> AIM: JediOfPi | ICQ: 33158237| the future of news, today
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2001 01:12:25 UTC