W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > October 2001

Re: Issue rdfms-not-id-and-resource-attr

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 23:51:05 -0500
Message-ID: <3BCFB139.C8ADBCD1@w3.org>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> Fortunately there are no users of this construction. (I wonder why?)

Sorry, I'm guilty of using this corner of the spec...
I read it as saying: rdf:ID on a propElt gives
a way to refer to the reified version of a statement.
I gather that's (1), the choice you're advocating, Jeremy.

I implemented it that way in some code
to conver rules from SHOE to RDF (and to KIF);
here's an example from the documentation of that code...


busy(?who, ?t) :- member(?who, ?group), meets(?group, ?t)


      <l:first rdf:resource="#if1"/>
      <l:first rdf:resource="#if2"/>
      <l:rest rdf:resource="@@empty"/>


  <r:then rdf:resource="#then"/>


  <rdf:Description about="#who">
    <xx:member rdf:ID="if1" rdf:resource="#group"/>


--        Inference Rules, an RDF Schema
Tue, 01 Aug 2000 20:00:42 GMT

Actually, this use of reification doesn't really
work they way I was trying to make it work...
but that's due to the use/mention bugs
I've pointed out elsewhere.

> We don't have a choice but to do something along the lines of (1), (2)
> (3) or (4) and the argument is not about not fixing things, but about
> what does the least damage to M&S and rearticulates M&S most faithfully.
> I believe that (1) is that choice.

I agree.

Meanwhile, the use/mention problems make rdf:subject/predicate/object
worthless for the use cases I'm interested in, so my argument
for agreeing with Jeremy comes down to aesthetics, not an
existing application of RDF 1.0 that I want to support.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 19 October 2001 00:52:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:05 UTC