- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 09:28:51 +0000
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: ext Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, ext Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>, www-archive@w3.org
I think we are agreed that: the choice between an asserted attribute in the XML and vocab in the triples is an important one that it is not obvious which way to go (Jeremy, Pat and Patrick have all argued for an asserted attribute at some point) Judging by Pat's last message, at least for now, we are trying a vocab solution. I need to read and probably reply separately to that message. The obstacle of legacy RDF/XML that does not have such an attribute, and legacy RDF/XML tools that do not support such an attribute is one reason for using vocab, but we should try and enumerate the pros and cons. Pro XML attribute - very clear - publisher has clear control - easy solution to bootstrapping problem Con XML attribute - publisher's identity left implicit - legacy - third party assertions impossible - adds additional theoretical level, isn't assertional status just more metadata? Pro Vocab - uses existing mechanisms, and hence partially addresses legacy - enables third party assertions, or single assertion by author for many docments - can derive assertional status, so system is extensible by users - vocab can require publisher to be identified by a URI node (well I guess a bnode would do, but I wouldn't trust it!) Con Vocab - can derive assertional status so bootstrapping is complicated - bootstrapping is logically twisted, since we seem to need to assume that a graph is asserted in order to examine its assertional status What have I forgotten? Short statements please, no advocacy. Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 11 March 2004 04:29:29 UTC