- From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 16:24:44 +0000 (GMT)
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
I should state in advance that I had no intention of causing Jeremy to explode!... On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, 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. I wrote some test cases ages ago that did this (just about when we started producing these). However, in an IRC conversation with Brian I had to concede that what I'd suggested (which is what you propose) was not the current state of play regarding whatever meaning could be gleaned from the M+S - rdf:ID plays an overloaded role in that document. We both comiserated but at the time, it seemed that producing test cases that describe what the M+S said (not what we thought it should say) was the honest thing to do; this is the (spurious?) backwards-compatibility argument. If we're going to produce a uniform interpretation for rdf:id then I'm all for what you propose. I was still labouring under the (mis?)apprehension that such tidying behaviour required more than an asthetic argument* if it was going to break/change the meaning of existing RDF documents. Non-argumentatively yours, jan * or appeal to sensible regularity, simplification of implementation, and all-round common sense :-/ -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk Not as randy or clumsom as a blaster.
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2002 11:27:43 UTC