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

At 14:48 09/01/2002 +0000, Jeremy Carroll wrote:


>Given that I objected to the proposed resolution of this issue at the last
>meeting I have been asked to provide an alternative resolution.
>
>
>My proposal:
>
>   An rdf:ID attribute is permissable on all property elements and always
>refers to the resource that is the reification of the triple corresponding
>to that property element.

That is much more regular and simple.  I remember the first time I spotted 
para 232 and was 'surprised'.




>Notes:
>   - this allows rdf:ID and rdf:resource on the same property element which
>is a change.
>   - this favours a reading of the relevant contradiction in M&S in which
>para232 is dropped and para214 is preferred.

I see no contradiction.  I see an overriding of a general rule in a 
specific case.

The original WG did not have to include the bit about ID in para232.  They 
could have said nothing.  The fact they did say something suggests to me 
that they MEANT to override para214.

In my view, what you propose is better than the original, but it is a 
change to the original spec, not a clarification of a contradiction.


>Reasons for this are:
>  - M&S is contradictory and has widely varying implementations of its
>reification syntax.

Is that true of the common case?

>  - This WG must resolve the contradiction.
>  - My proposed resolution is very simple, and hence makes reification
>significantly more usable, and less of a barrier to RDF take-up.

That is over egging things a bit.  Do you really think the problems with 
reification lie in this obscure bit of syntax?

Brian

Received on Wednesday, 9 January 2002 16:51:41 UTC