- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 11:31:46 +0100
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
- CC: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
>>>Aaron Swartz said: > Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk> wrote: > > > The confusion is the different interpretation of rdf:ID in > > propertyElt when the element is empty / non-empty. > > It was my understanding that the issue was the fact that statements using > resources as objects could not be reified. <snip/> No - the original issue had a specific question which I refered to, quoted, and answered in my message: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001May/0088.html I was not answering the different issue above. <snip/> > But the grammar does not allow this because of the (somewhat unexpected and > little-known) usage of ID to name a new property. > > Along with Jan Grant's proposal for removing the creation of new resources > on empty propElts, I think that the use of ID to name them should also be > removed. Thus your option 2 would always be the case. I feel that removing this existing syntax is too much of a change, although I did give my misgivings about its function and clarity in my message. In IRC later, Aaron noted there was a way to do what he wanted http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfig/2001-05-17.html#T22-06-32 which was also in the original issue description Dave
Received on Friday, 18 May 2001 06:31:47 UTC