- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:19:32 +0100
- To: connolly@w3.org
- Cc: aswartz@upclink.com, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> 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> . > Dan Connolly replied: > 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, I think this is a constructive term :-) > 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.) I wouldn't know either and I also think there is no reason to go any further than *using* the *term* [ foo:bar <http://foobar>] and that (anonymous, existentially quantified) term happens to be described with 1 N-triples triple _:genid foo:bar <http://foobar> . > 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 > I agree with your points of view of there > 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. OK :-) -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2001 04:20:17 UTC