- From: Nikita Ogievetsky <nogievet@cogx.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 14:04:09 -0400
- To: "Aaron Swartz" <me@aaronsw.com>
- Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>, "RDF-Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, "Uche Ogbuji" <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>
Aaron, > No, You'd need to remove the # signs. Sorry the real question got buried behind my typo. It should have been: <daml:Disjoint rdf:parseType="daml:collection"> <daml:Class rdf:ID="Car"/> <daml:Class rdf:ID="Person"/> </daml:Disjoint> And my point was that it is might be confusing to have somewhere else in the same document: <daml:Class rdf:ID="TallPerson"> <daml:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="daml:collection"> <daml:Class rdf:ID="TallThing"/> <daml:Class rdf:ID="Person"/> </daml:intersectionOf> </daml:Class> In your answer you said > Also note that, in > following the rules of rdf:ID, duplicate uses of the same ID are > not allowed. Great! But if so, what does it mean: > > > > Effectively make rdf:ID and rdf:about equivalent. ? I hope you do not mean that "duplicate uses of the same rdf:about are not allowed". :-) I like the idea of this proposal (that's why I am writing here) However aren't you afraid that the removing of: "The ID attribute signals the creation of a new resource" will make it impossible to catch typos like: <daml:thing rdf:ID="TallThing"/> .... <daml:thing rdf:about="#tall-thing"/> which will result in creation of two nodes: "TallThing" and "tall-thing" And the third question (OT) is: > > <daml:Class rdf:resource="#Person"/> ... > No, this is completely different. Of course! But could you define this difference? In the DAML examples statements and properties are getting mixed together, I think it is great! Sorry... I hope you understand that I am writing a little bit like a devil's advocate, I am coming from XTM background and still quite novice to RDF. These new changes are very encouraging! I would really appreciate if you could find some time to give somewhat more verbose answers. Thanks, --Nikita Ogievetsky. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Aaron Swartz" <me@aaronsw.com> To: "Nikita Ogievetsky" <nogievet@cogx.com> Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>; "RDF-Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>; "Uche Ogbuji" <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com> Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 4:30 PM Subject: Re: Attention Users! (2 in a series) > On Thursday, July 5, 2001, at 03:43 PM, Nikita Ogievetsky wrote: > > > 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> > > No, You'd need to remove the # signs. Also note that, in > following the rules of rdf:ID, duplicate uses of the same ID are > not allowed. > > > 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> > > No, this is completely different. > > -- > "Aaron Swartz" | The Semantic Web > <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> | <http://logicerror.com/semanticWeb-long> > <http://www.aaronsw.com/> | i'm working to make it happen > >
Received on Monday, 9 July 2001 14:08:21 UTC