- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:13:20 +0100
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Of the issue resolutions currently in the draft 1.67 I am only uneasy
with:
rdfms-not-id-and-resource-attr
Action: The grammar has[will be] been modified to forbid the
use of an rdf:ID attribute
when a rdf:resource attribute is also given. This removes an
ambiguity of which
statement is reified but is relatively harmless since the
statement can be precisely reified
using the non-empty version of the property element with an
<rdf:Description> block
I prefer to go other way, to allow an rdf:ID on any propertyElt
production and to uniformly understand it as reifying the triple created
by that propertyElt. (Personally I don't see the ambiguity referred to
in your text).
Is the intent of your text to delete para 232, i.e. we forbid reading
the rdf:ID on some propertyElt's as something other than a reification?
Should your text (the intent) read:
....
when a rdf:resource attribute is also *possible*. ...
Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2001 05:09:41 UTC