From : "McBride, Brian" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> > What I was trying to say to Tim was there was nothing to stop > him doing what he suggested, but that he might also consider > the alternative of adding the fragment id's automatically. Once we are on the subject, I still have some problem with that ID thing. What exactly is the point of writing, in a file foo.rdf <rdf:Description ID="bar"> As I understand it, it "defines" the resource foo.rdf#rdf So, why not simply write <rdf:Description about="#bar"> Again, as I understand it, this is because the fragment id "bar" does not exist in the file foo.rdf, so rdf:ID allows to define AND describe it. Well, the fragment id "bar" does not exist in foo.rdf. So what ? Most of the time, rdf:ID is used (as far as I know) for classes or properties: resources that are abstract by essence, that can not be retrieved anyway ! Naming them foo.rdf#bar or whatever is nothing but a convention. Defining a fragment id allows the URI of the resource to return the description of the resource ; but the description is a PROPERTY of the resource, not the resource itself. The metaporperty rdfs:isDefinedBy is intended for that, and XPointer allows to point to any rdf;Description tag in a more standard way. T(rdfs:isDefinedBy, my_resource, foo.rdf#xpointer(...)) So, did I miss something about rdf:ID ? Pierre-Antoine ______________________________________________________ Boîte aux lettres - Caramail - http://www.caramail.comReceived on Wednesday, 4 October 2000 09:16:31 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:25 UTC