- From: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 11:09:30 -0700
- To: guha@alpiri.com
- CC: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
"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 I agree with Guha. As to me, I'd get rid of rdf:ID altogether, or make it deprecated. With respect to this and other syntax issues, I'd like to remind of the "roundtrip" test, which have been raised many times on RDF Interest: an RDF tool must be able to parse, serialize, parse, serialize etc. without loss of information, i.e., on every parse, exactly the same set of statements is produced. Notice that after the first parse, rdf:ID will be necessarity replaced by rdf:about, since the model does not intrinsically capture the information about its origin. Sergey > > 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
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2001 13:43:51 UTC