- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:19:12 +0100
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>>>Jeremy Carroll said: > > > 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 Which I wrote just so people could argue / support. Plus I own this issue and want to close it. :) > 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). There has patently been plenty of implementer and WG confusion given previous long threads discussing this artifact, lack of coherent implementation and use, so I was proposing a clarification by removing it, since it can be done another way. In addition, it is consistent with the recent rdf:ID="attr" abbreviates rdf:about="#attr" near-decision; since this rdf:ID doesn't do that, it is an alternative for rdf:resource The existing grammar says very complex things near http://ioctl.org/rdf/ms/rdfms#229 but in http://ioctl.org/rdf/ms/rdfms#232 "r2 is the resource named by the resource attribute if present or a new resource. If the ID attribute is given it is the identifier of this new resource." so the following example is illegal in RDF/XML M&S 1.0 <?xml version="1.0"?> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:ex="http://example.org/schema#"> <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.org/r"> <ex:property rdf:ID="foo" rdf:resource="http://example.org/blah" ex:prop="lit"/> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF> since rdf:ID and rdf:resource are alternatives. > > 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? I am not doing any deletion on old text, but constructing a new one. However, I was proposing not allowing rdf:ID in the new grammar in this place, to ease the confusion and consistent with the rdf:ID/rdf:about choice. The rdf:ID above is on a property that introduces 2 statements (in my example; can be more with extra property attributes) so can't reify both. It could reify one, but this abbreviated form still seems rather odd. > Should your text (the intent) read: > .... > when a rdf:resource attribute is also *possible*. ... I'd rather you proposed this as change rather than ask me to justify why you want it! Replacing your proposed change Action: The grammar has[will be] been modified to forbid the use of an rdf:ID attribute when a rdf:resource attribute is also possible. 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 Hmm, I don't like that at all actually. Maybe: Action: The grammar has[will be] been modified to forbid the use of an rdf:ID attribute on an empty property element. This is consistent with using rdf:ID="attr" as an abbreviation for rdf:about="#attr" and removes the suggestion that it reifys a statement, which it never did in the original grammar form. Dave
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2001 06:22:24 UTC