- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 07:25:44 -0500
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
pat hayes wrote: > > >"R.V.Guha" wrote: > > > > > > Ok, Aaron, you hit the nail on the head. > > > > > > RDF absolutely has to make sense even outside the context of > > > an enclosing document which can be given a uri. so ... > > > >So... what? That doesn't make any sense to me. > > > >An RDF document is an XML document. > > ?? It is? I thought that RDF was sets of triples and the XML version > was just one way to render it into text. I was fairly careful to say "RDF document," meaning RDF expressed in RDF/XML syntax. This discussion is about relative URIs, which are (at least by my reckoning) a syntactic gizmo. > Call for clarification: are we supposed to take the XML syntax of RDF > as definitive, or the triples model? I'm not sure what you mean by definitive. To restate my position on this issue: * each RDF document (in RDF/XML syntax) denotes a set of triples (that can also be expressed in n-triples format). The terms in the triples are *absolute* URIs or anonymous thingies. * the rdf:ID="abc" syntax is little more than syntactic sugar; it has the same impact on the set of triples as rdf:about="#abc". I say "little more" rather than "no more" because there's a constraint that no two elements may bear the same value in their rdf:ID attributes; this constraint is somewhat valuable in detecting mistakes. * rdf:about="#abc" is also syntactic sugar; it's short for ABSURI#abc where ABSURI is the absolute URI of the XML document that you were parsing (if that's unknown/unspecified, so is the absolute form of #abc, and hence so is the set of triples that the document denotes.) -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Sunday, 24 June 2001 08:25:47 UTC