- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 13:41:02 -0500
- To: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
- Cc: www-rdf-rules@w3.org
>A question has been bothering me for a while. >In RDF we only have named nodes (with URIs) and anonymous nodes. >So apparently the models does not enable us to create locally scoped >names. > >On the other hand, the syntax has two different constructs for named >nodes : rdf:about and rdf:ID. >From an XML point of view, IDs are locally scoped. However, RDF makes >them global by prepending the document URI to them, with a '#'. Right, RDF treats anonymous nodes like locally bound existential variables, and all other names - URIs - as having global (WWW) scope. >Do we agree that the same resource could have several URIS ? Yes, but that is a different issue. Two globally scoped names may have the same denotation. >I do think >so. For example, if I write > ><rdf:Description ID="someBook"> > <pac:readIt>9/11/2001</pac:readIt> > <pac:rating>Very good</pac:rating> ></rdf:Description> > >I do not deny myPieceOfRDF#someBook to identify the same resource as to >urn:isbn:12345. I may just have given it an rdf:ID for syntactical >reasons... > >In short : am I wrong to use rdf:ID as a kind of locally scoped IDs? I would say so, yes. >If >yes, how could I do it else? If no, how do we manage (and first of all >recognize) those "not global URIs" in queries ? But when prefixed with yourWebSiteAddress#, they *are* global. Why would they not be? Pat Hayes --------------------------------------------------------------------- (650)859 6569 w (650)494 3973 h (until September) phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2001 12:39:40 UTC