- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 15:11:41 +0100
- To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Dave Beckett wrote: > > In case #1 (empty element) since rdf:ID points to the target > resource, adding rdf:resource as well would have two statement > objects which does not make sense. I'm not following you here Dave. <rdf:Description> <foo:bar rdf:ID="rs">foobar</foo:bar> </rdf:Desscription> is clearly legal and the rdf:ID attribute defines the URI of the refied statement the property represents. The question that arises is whether <rdf:Description> <foo:bar rdf:resource="http://foo/" rdf:ID="rs"/> </rdf:Description> is legal, with again the rdf:ID attribute defining the URI of the reifed statement. It does seem a bit irregular to allow the use of an rdf:ID attribute to identify the reifed statement in the case where the object is a literal, but not in the case where it is a resource. And strictly speaking, the grammar does not rule it out as the rdf:resource attribute matches the idAboutAttr? in the production and the rdf:ID attribute matches the propAttr*. Brian
Received on Monday, 21 May 2001 10:12:15 UTC