- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 09:27:05 -0400
- To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Cc: Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org> wrote: >> If rdf:ID is defined as having uniqueness constraints then it is surely broken for >> RDF as the same thing can of course be referred to in lots of of places >> in the file, with exactly the same syntax. > > Well... no. > You have to use rdf:about the other times. FWIW, I consider it bad practice to use rdf:ID because of this reason. There's no reason to not use rdf:about in all cases. -Alan > -Alan > >> >> Tim >> >>> >>> >>> >>> Jonathan Rees wrote: >>>> [...] The RDF/XML DTD >>>> (http://www.w3.org/XML/9710rdf-dtd/rdf.dtd) gives the rdf:ID attribute >>>> type ID, and the XML specs (including xml:id and Xpointer) do their >>>> very best to ensure that attributes with type ID are as much as >>>> possible the same as xml:id. The RDF/XML spec also makes rdf:ID very >>>> similar to xml:id - same syntactic and uniqueness constraints. So it >>>> seemed highly likely to me that rdf:ID defines fragids the same way >>>> that xml:id does. >> >> >
Received on Monday, 11 October 2010 13:27:55 UTC