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

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