Re: Attention Users! (2 in a series)


Thanks for your answers and
sorry for somewhat  cluttered questions :-)
I will try to be more specific.

> > 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.

Yes, this is clear now. Originally I wrongly understood that you
are suggesting to deprecate (suppress) one of them and that was unclear.

<--Uche said:
|> I agree with this, except that perhaps rdf:ID should simply be
Aaron said:
| I'd like that, but I don't see how to do it within the constraints of our

> >>>   <daml:Class rdf:about="#Person"/>
> >>>   <daml:Class rdf:resource="#Person"/>
> One defines #Person as the subject, the other as the object.

Wow! this is very intuitive indeed. Why did not I guess it? :-))
There is still one more thing for which I would very much
appreciate some help:
Can you suggest a triple (or N3) representation for this fragment:

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



Received on Monday, 23 July 2001 12:59:25 UTC