- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 14:09:12 +0100
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > REIFICATION ON 6.12 > =================== > File: rdf-containers-syntax-vs-schema/test004.nt It is helpful if you can give the whole URL of the test case. > It seems that the intent of the test case is that rdf:ID="e1" is a > reification whereas rdf:ID="e4" gives the URI of the object. Is that > really the intent? Yes. It is a feature of the syntax as specified in m&s that an rdf:ID attibute on a property element is interpreted differently when property attributes are present. See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Jun/att-0021/00-part#232 > > Even allowing that these are intended to be 6.12 propertyElt productions > it seems to contradict (rather than clarify) the following: > > M&S: "Within propertyElt (production [6.12]), [...] The value of the ID > attribute, if specified, is the identifier for the resource that > represents the reification of the statement. " This is not as clear as it might be. The prevalent interpretation is that the paragraph refered to above overrides this one in the more specific case where property attributes are present. > > <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" > xmlns:foo="http://foo/"> > <foo:Bar> > <rdf:li rdf:ID="e1">1</rdf:li> > <rdf:li rdf:parseType="Literal">2</rdf:li> > <rdf:li rdf:parseType="Resource"> > <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://foo/Bar"/> > </rdf:li> > <rdf:li rdf:ID="e4" foo:bar="foobar"/> > </foo:Bar> > </rdf:RDF> > > Jeremy Carroll > HP Labs
Received on Saturday, 14 July 2001 09:11:42 UTC