- From: McBride, Brian <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 14:55:48 +0100
- To: "'Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN'" <pachampi@caramail.com>, "McBride, Brian" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> I still have some problem with that ID thing. Me too. I guess this another one for the issues list if its not there already. I didn't pick up anything explicit in trawl through the archives, though I'm sure there has been previous discussion. The closest thing is the "what does for.bar#x identify". I'll add it to my working list of issues and pointers. Brian > > 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.com > >
Received on Wednesday, 4 October 2000 09:56:40 UTC