- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 10:09:20 +0100
- To: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
With respect to the "anon-resources" issue and telecon discussion, I'd like to stand back from the words. At the F2F in Sebastopol, I thought it was clearly stated by members of the original RDF WG that the *intent* of <rdf:Description ...> without 'rdf:id=...' or 'rdf:about=...' was to assert the existence of a resource with given properties without identifying the resource. The discussion help then and subsequently seemed, to me, to indicate that the current group felt that this is a reasonable requirement and interpretation. (This discussion included some analysis of different options, led by Sergey, using a subset of FOL to analyze the consequences of this and other interpretations. I think there was also some exploration of use-cases, though I don't now recall the details.) My text was an attempt to reflect this, but it seems to me that before debating my text we need to agree on the general thrust and intent here. I think that was questioned in last Friday's telecon, so needs to be reviewed. #g
Received on Monday, 15 October 2001 05:43:44 UTC