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> .
>

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