- From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 17:30:20 -0600
- To: "Nikita Ogievetsky" <nogievet@cogx.com>
- cc: "Aaron Swartz" <me@aaronsw.com>, "RDF-Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
> > > 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. > > Annotated DAML+OIL (March 2001) Ontology Markup > http://www.daml.org/2001/03/daml+oil-walkthru.html > > Contains the following example markup: > > <daml:Disjoint rdf:parseType="daml:collection"> > <daml:Class rdf:about="#Car"/> > <daml:Class rdf:about="#Person"/> > <daml:Class rdf:about="#Plant"/> > </daml:Disjoint> > > Do you mean that this can be equivalently written like this: > > <daml:Disjoint rdf:parseType="daml:collection"> > <daml:Class rdf:ID="#Car"/> > <daml:Class rdf:ID="#Person"/> > <daml:Class rdf:ID="#Plant"/> > </daml:Disjoint> Yes. > Or do you think that the above mentioned markup should be instead: > > <daml:Disjoint rdf:parseType="daml:collection"> > <daml:Class rdf:resource="#Car"/> > <daml:Class rdf:resource="#Person"/> > <daml:Class rdf:resource="#Plant"/> > </daml:Disjoint> No, these say different things. In this latter case, you would still need to define an <rdf:Resource ID="Car"/> somewhere in the doc, which would serve as the object of the statement. > > "Usage of an rdf:ID attribute to identify the subject of a description, is > > equivalent to usage of an rdf:about attribute with the same content, > > except the content of the rdf:about attribute is prefixed by a '#' > character > > and URI encoded." > > > > shouldn't that be > > > > "except the content of the rdf:ID attribute"? > > > > I agree with this, except that perhaps rdf:ID should simply be suppressed. > > > > This would solve the above mentioned seams-to-me-to-be a problem , > but I would rather leave rdf:ID and rdf:about redundancy in place. > I believe that there is some semantic value in rdf:ID serving as an explicit > anchor in controlled vocabulary. OK. I can easily bend to this. -- Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com +1 303 583 9900 x 101 Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com 4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA XML strategy, XML tools (http://4Suite.org), knowledge management
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2001 19:32:02 UTC