- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 15:29:04 +0100
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
This is from the "giving yourself more work" category.
It does not address a last call issue and is thus optional.
Privately, I've been asked if rdf:nodeID could be allowed on
properties so that statements could be reified with a blank node
identifier rather than a URI being required.
i.e. Presently allowed:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:ex="http://example.org/vocab#">
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.org/node">
<ex:foo rdf:ID="abc">foo</ex:foo>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
making the 4 reification triples with reified node with URI <baseURI#abc>
<baseURI#abc> rdf:type rdf:Statement .
<baseURI#abc> rdf:subject <http://example.org/node> .
<baseURI#abc> rdf:predicate <http://example.org/vocab#foo> .
<baseURI#abc> rdf:object "foo" .
Presently forbidden:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:ex="http://example.org/vocab#">
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.org/node">
<ex:foo rdf:nodeID="rei">foo</ex:foo>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
making the 4 reification triples with blank node ID _:abc
_:rei rdf:type rdf:Statement .
_:rei rdf:subject <http://example.org/node> .
_:rei rdf:predicate <http://example.org/vocab#foo> .
_:rei rdf:object "foo" .
Pros:
Flexibility
Consistency
No need to invent a URI
Cons:
Another change
3 places to put rdf:nodeID - will this confuse?
This would have low syntax doc impact, but would need some minor new
words.
In terms of implementing, I don't see it as too hard.
Dave
Received on Monday, 7 April 2003 10:29:59 UTC