- From: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
- Date: 02 Jul 2001 10:42:41 +0200
- To: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
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: http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf- > 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? Definitely! 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: > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > > Thanks for your feedback, Thanks for asking :) Pierre-Antoine
Received on Monday, 2 July 2001 04:41:02 UTC