Re: Attention Users! (2 in a series)

Aaron,

> No, You'd need to remove the # signs.
Sorry the real question got buried behind my typo.
It should have been:

<daml:Disjoint rdf:parseType="daml:collection">
   <daml:Class rdf:ID="Car"/>
   <daml:Class rdf:ID="Person"/>
</daml:Disjoint>

And my point was that it is might be confusing to have
somewhere else in the same document:

<daml:Class rdf:ID="TallPerson">
  <daml:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="daml:collection">
    <daml:Class rdf:ID="TallThing"/>
    <daml:Class rdf:ID="Person"/>
  </daml:intersectionOf>
</daml:Class>

In your answer you said
> Also note that, in
> following the rules of rdf:ID, duplicate uses of the same ID are
> not allowed.

Great! But if so, what does it mean:
> > > > Effectively make rdf:ID and rdf:about equivalent.
?
I hope you do not mean that "duplicate uses of the same rdf:about are
not allowed". :-)

I like the idea of this proposal (that's why I am writing here)
However aren't you afraid that the removing of:
"The ID attribute signals the creation of a new resource"
will make it impossible to catch typos like:

<daml:thing rdf:ID="TallThing"/>
....
<daml:thing rdf:about="#tall-thing"/>

which will result in creation of two nodes:
"TallThing" and "tall-thing"

And the third question (OT) is:

> >   <daml:Class rdf:resource="#Person"/>
...
> No, this is completely different.

Of course! But could you define this difference?
In the DAML examples statements and properties
are getting mixed together, I think it is great!
Sorry... I hope you understand that I am writing a little bit like a devil's
advocate,
I am coming from XTM background and still quite novice to RDF.
These new changes are very encouraging!
I would really appreciate if you could find some time to give somewhat more
verbose answers.

Thanks,

--Nikita Ogievetsky.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Aaron Swartz" <me@aaronsw.com>
To: "Nikita Ogievetsky" <nogievet@cogx.com>
Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>; "RDF-Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>;
"Uche Ogbuji" <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: Attention Users! (2 in a series)


> On Thursday, July 5, 2001, at 03:43  PM, Nikita Ogievetsky wrote:
>
> > 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>
>
> No, You'd need to remove the # signs. Also note that, in
> following the rules of rdf:ID, duplicate uses of the same ID are
> not allowed.
>
> > 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, this is completely different.
>
> --
>        "Aaron Swartz"      |              The Semantic Web
>   <mailto:me@aaronsw.com>  |  <http://logicerror.com/semanticWeb-long>
> <http://www.aaronsw.com/> |        i'm working to make it happen
>
>

Received on Monday, 9 July 2001 14:08:21 UTC