- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 23:51:05 -0500
- 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... [[[ Example busy(?who, ?t) :- member(?who, ?group), meets(?group, ?t) [...] <r:if> <l:List> <l:first rdf:resource="#if1"/> <l:rest> <l:List> <l:first rdf:resource="#if2"/> <l:rest rdf:resource="@@empty"/> </l:List> </l:rest> </l:List> </r:if> <r:then rdf:resource="#then"/> </r:Rule> <rdf:Description about="#who"> <xx:member rdf:ID="if1" rdf:resource="#group"/> </rdf:Description> ... ]]] -- Inference Rules, an RDF Schema http://www.w3.org/2000/04shoe-swell/inference.html 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