- From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 15:18:57 -0500
- To: "Uche Ogbuji" <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>
- Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>, "RDF-Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <dorait@msn.com>
On Friday, July 6, 2001, at 10:40 AM, Uche Ogbuji wrote: > "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"? Hmm, how about: "Usage of an rdf:ID attribute to identify the subject of a description, is equivalent to usage of an rdf:about attribute with the the '#' character followed by the URI-encoded form of the content rdf:ID attribute." http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf- tests/rdfcore/rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about/ > I agree with this, except that perhaps rdf:ID should simply be > suppressed. I'd like that, but I don't see how to do it within the constraints of our charter. >> 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. Basically, it'd be something like: <http://example.org/test1.rdf#foo> rdfs:isDefinedBy <http://example.org/test1.rdf> . In addition to the usual stuff. >> 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> Of course! >> 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. Thanks, I've told the WG about this. See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0051 -- "Aaron Swartz" | Blogspace <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> | <http://blogspace.com/about/> <http://www.aaronsw.com/> | weaving the two-way web
Received on Sunday, 8 July 2001 16:19:06 UTC