- From: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
- Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 16:45:13 +0000
- To: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net>
- Cc: "RDF interest group" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
At 10:44 PM 12/20/00 -0500, Jonathan Borden wrote:
>Graham Klyne wrote:
>
> >
> > I has occurred to me that the "third basic abbreviation" form for RDF in
> > XML, coupled with the RDF schema definition of rdfs:Resource, renders the
> > <rdf:Description> element of RDF redundant.
>
>One remaining question. M&S states that a container is implicitly associated
>with a Description (see between figures 8 and 9). Is this also true for a
>typedNode? If without a bagID?
My take is that a 'typedNode' (with or without 'bagId') *is* a
'Description', so nothing is changed. I read that RDF M&S + RDFS allow any
occurrence of:
<rdf:Description ...>
:
</rdf:Description>
can be replaced by:
<rdfs:Resource ...>
:
</rdfs:Resource>
leaving everything else unchanged.
Hence, I argue, that the 'Description' element is redundant. Nothing else
changes. Alternatively, 'rdf:Description' can be viewed as a synonym for
'rdfs:Resource'.
#g
------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Monday, 1 January 2001 14:00:48 UTC