- From: Nikita Ogievetsky <nogievet@cogx.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 16:43:55 -0400
- To: "Uche Ogbuji" <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>, "Aaron Swartz" <me@aaronsw.com>
- Cc: "RDF-Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
> > UNDER DISCUSSION: rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about > > > > The Working Group is considering two proposals: > > > > Proposal 1: http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf- > > tests/rdfcore/rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about/ > > Effectively make rdf:ID and rdf:about equivalent. Annotated DAML+OIL (March 2001) Ontology Markup http://www.daml.org/2001/03/daml+oil-walkthru.html Contains the following example markup: <daml:Disjoint rdf:parseType="daml:collection"> <daml:Class rdf:about="#Car"/> <daml:Class rdf:about="#Person"/> <daml:Class rdf:about="#Plant"/> </daml:Disjoint> Do you mean that this can be equivalently written like this: <daml:Disjoint rdf:parseType="daml:collection"> <daml:Class rdf:ID="#Car"/> <daml:Class rdf:ID="#Person"/> <daml:Class rdf:ID="#Plant"/> </daml:Disjoint> Or do you think that the above mentioned markup should be instead: <daml:Disjoint rdf:parseType="daml:collection"> <daml:Class rdf:resource="#Car"/> <daml:Class rdf:resource="#Person"/> <daml:Class rdf:resource="#Plant"/> </daml:Disjoint> > "Usage of an rdf:ID attribute to identify the subject of a description, is > equivalent to usage of an rdf:about attribute with the same content, > except the content of the rdf:about attribute is prefixed by a '#' character > and URI encoded." > > shouldn't that be > > "except the content of the rdf:ID attribute"? > > I agree with this, except that perhaps rdf:ID should simply be suppressed. > This would solve the above mentioned seams-to-me-to-be a problem , but I would rather leave rdf:ID and rdf:about redundancy in place. I believe that there is some semantic value in rdf:ID serving as an explicit anchor in controlled vocabulary. > > Proposal 2: No writeup available yet > > Generate rdfs:isDefinedBy triples when rdf:ID is used. > > Interesting. I'll have to give this some thought. A write-up with examples > would be quite helpful. > > > > Should literals be considered a type of resource, possibly > > "data:" URIs rather than a special case in the model? > > I think this is a good idea, as long as it can be implicit and one is not > forced to write > > <prop rdf:resource="data:quopri:foo"/> > > instead of > > <prop>foo</prop> > > > > What should we do about xml:lang? > > > > - Keep it a special case in the model (a property of a literal)? > > - Use some sort of triple or other model-based system for it? > > - Throw it out altogether? > > I'd prefer to see a special RDF property for it, i.e. the second option. > > > > Are there issues that you would like to see RDF Core address > > right away? Please let us know: > > Clarifying rdf:value. I change my mind about what it *really* means everytime > I read the spec or see an example. If it isn't in the grammar because it's > merely an RDF property, then this should be clearly explained, and preferably > the semantics of this property should be elucidated. > > I know there's already an issue open for this. I just think it's a matter of > priority because of the numerous interpretations. > > > -- > Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant > uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com +1 303 583 9900 x 101 > Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com > 4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA > XML strategy, XML tools (http://4Suite.org), knowledge management > > > > --Nikita. ---------------------------------------------------------- Nikita Ogievetsky Cogitech Inc XML/XSLT/XLink/TopicMaps Consultant nogievet@cogx.com -- (917) 406-8734 http://www.cogx.com Cogito Ergo XML
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2001 16:47:55 UTC