Re: Proposal for rdfms-not-id-and-resource-attr

Aaron Swartz wrote:
[...]
> I'd suggest that the example in the issues list:
> 
>     <rdf:Description>
>       <foo:bar rdf:ID="foobar" rdf:resource="http://foobar"/>
>     </rdf:Description>
> 
> be interpreted as:
> 
>     _:genid foo:bar <http://foobar> .
>     <#foobar> rdf:subject _:genid .
>     <#foobar> rdf:predicate foo:bar .
>     <#foobar> rdf:object <http://foobar> .

On the one hand: this seems like the obvious interpretation.
I had to poke around to figure out why anyone would think otherwise.
(hand pointer:
http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-not-id-and-resource-attr)

looks like a bug in the grammar of the RDF spec, to me.

So I sorta second this proposal; but on the other hand...

I'm afraid rdf:subject/predicate/object are Broken As Designed,
and that they need a level of quoting to be useful; i.e.

     <#foobar> rdf:predicate "....foo#bar" .
     <#foobar> rdf:object "http://foobar" .

(dunno how you'd give the rdf:subject in this case;
it's anonymous.)

cf

use/mention and reification: rdf:predicate/subject/object
Dan Connolly (Sat, May 26 2001) 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2001May/0359.html

Re: use/mention and reification: rdf:predicate/subject/object
Dan Connolly (Fri, Jun 01 2001) 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2001Jun/0020.html

So don't put me down as endorsing the way rdf:predicate/subject/object
are used in Aaron's proposal. In fact, I'm inclined to postpone
all issues about reification (and resource semantics etc.)
until more of the mundane syntax issues have been resolved.

On balance, I guess I'd be happy to see this resolved, provided
the "attention developers" stuff says that we're likely
to revisit the way rdf:predicate/subject/object work.

> DaveB, in his original proposal[1], decided that ID and resource could not
> be used because in an empty XML element, ID pointed to the object of the
> element. He later said[2] that the issue could be looked at again if
> empty-property-elements were decided differently. As they are now decided to
> eliminate the portion of the spec that cause the confusion, I suggest that
> the interpretation of ID be changed to fit with the test case above.
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001May/0088.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001May/0164.html
> 
> --
> [ :name "Aaron Swartz" ] is dc:author of <> .

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2001 01:05:11 UTC