Re: Attention Users! (2 in a series)

On Monday, July 9, 2001, at 01:04  PM, Nikita Ogievetsky wrote:

> 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>

It would be more than just confusing, it would be illegal.

> 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". :-)

No, sorry if there was confusion. I meant that they were 
semantically equivalent -- i.e. that there is no special 
semantics implied by using an ID attribute. They clearly are not 
syntactically equivalent, nor are the syntactic rules about IDs 
changed. I hope this makes sense, please let me know if I'm not 
being clear.

> 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"

Umm, I'm not sure how the current system makes this any 
different. If these were both IDs, it would be an error.

> And the third question (OT) is:
>>>   <daml:Class rdf:resource="#Person"/>
> ...
>> No, this is completely different.
> Of course! But could you define this difference?

One defines #Person as the subject, the other as the object.

> 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.

I apologize for the time it took me before I could draft this 
reply -- I have been quite busy lately. However, it is hard for 
me to give more verbose answers since I am not quite sure about 
what you are confused about. Perhaps it would work better if you 
could be more verbose about your assumptions, etc.


       "Aaron Swartz"      | ...schoolyard subversion...
  <>  |  <>
<> | because school makes kids dumb

Received on Saturday, 21 July 2001 23:16:31 UTC