- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 12:38:52 +0100
- To: guha@alpiri.com
- Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
I concur. This was an issue we were wrestling with for CC/PP. I had
thought that xml:base would help there, but that's not so clear now.
(The problem is, I suspect, not so much one of interpreting rdf:id='foo' as
equivalent to rdf:about='#foo', but how to interpret any labelling of the
form rdf:about='#foo'.)
#g
--
At 06:31 PM 6/13/01 -0700, R.V.Guha wrote:
>This whole distinction between ID and about is trouble
>waiting to happen.
>
>RDF may be embedded in messages (like SOAP) that might not have
>a url of any sort. In this case, the distinction between id and about,
>and
>the proposal to use "#" which is based on the idea of anchors all lead
>to nothing but trouble.
>
>guha
>
>Brian McBride wrote:
>
> > With reference to action:
> >
> > AP: 2001-06-08#4: Brian McBride to write up this third proposed
> > interpretation
> >
> > A third proposal is to regard:
> >
> > <rdf:Description rdf:ID="foo"/>
> >
> > as equivalent to:
> >
> > <rdf:Description rdf:about="#foo"/>
> >
> > Brian
------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne Baltimore Technologies
Strategic Research Content Security Group
<Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com> <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<http://www.baltimore.com>
------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2001 07:47:52 UTC