- From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 22:16:27 -0500
- To: "Nikita Ogievetsky" <nogievet@cogx.com>
- Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>, "RDF-Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
On Monday, July 9, 2001, at 01:04 PM, Nikita Ogievetsky wrote: > 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> > It would be more than just confusing, it would be illegal. > 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". :-) No, sorry if there was confusion. I meant that they were semantically equivalent -- i.e. that there is no special semantics implied by using an ID attribute. They clearly are not syntactically equivalent, nor are the syntactic rules about IDs changed. I hope this makes sense, please let me know if I'm not being clear. > 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" Umm, I'm not sure how the current system makes this any different. If these were both IDs, it would be an error. > And the third question (OT) is: > >>> <daml:Class rdf:resource="#Person"/> > ... >> No, this is completely different. > > Of course! But could you define this difference? One defines #Person as the subject, the other as the object. > 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. I apologize for the time it took me before I could draft this reply -- I have been quite busy lately. However, it is hard for me to give more verbose answers since I am not quite sure about what you are confused about. Perhaps it would work better if you could be more verbose about your assumptions, etc. Thanks, -- "Aaron Swartz" | ...schoolyard subversion... <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> | <http://aaronsw.com/school/> <http://www.aaronsw.com/> | because school makes kids dumb
Received on Saturday, 21 July 2001 23:16:30 UTC