Re: Attention Users! (2 in a series)

On 01 Jul 2001 14:04:11 -0500, Aaron Swartz wrote:
> UNDER DISCUSSION: rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about
> The Working Group is considering two proposals:
> Proposal 1:
> tests/rdfcore/rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about/
> Effectively make rdf:ID and rdf:about equivalent.
> Proposal 2: No writeup available yet
> Generate rdfs:isDefinedBy triples when rdf:ID is used.

Maybe I'm missing another design issue, but I gues the WG should
consider rdf:ID, rdf:about *and* anonymous resources altogether.
 - rdf:about is for describing a resource with a known URI
 - anonymous resources are for describing resources with no known URI
(am I right?)
The problem with rdf:ID is : what are they for ?
 - resources without known URI, like anonymous ones, but with a name in
order to compensate for the syntactical imitations of strictly anonymous
resources ?
 - resources which did nort exist previously, which are given existence
by means of the rdf:ID ?

My guess is that there is a need for both functions I described above
(and may be other ones I did not think about). Whichever option is
opted, I believe the WG has to explicitely state how each function can
be achieved with RDF syntax.

> UNDER DISCUSSION: rdfms-literals-as-resources
> Should literals  be considered a type of resource, possibly 
> "data:" URIs rather than a special case in the model?

Don't use two notions where one is enough.

I know that some people argue that two litterals with the same value are
not equal. I believe this is a mistake, since they assign more semantics
to literals than being *just* literals -- so my guess is that they
should use dedicated resources instead, with an rdf:value property
pointing to the literal.

> Are there issues that you would like to see RDF Core address 
> right away? Please let us know:
> Thanks for your feedback,

 Thanks for asking :)


Received on Monday, 2 July 2001 04:41:02 UTC