- From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>
- Date: 2001年7月13日 18:26:56 -0600
- To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org, "RDF-Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, dorait@msn.com
- Message-Id: <200107140026.f6E0Qur30568@localhost.local>
> On Friday, July 6, 2001, at 10:40 AM, Uche Ogbuji wrote: > > > "Usage of an rdf:ID attribute to identify the subject of a > > description, is > > equivalent to usage of an rdf:about attribute with the same content, > > except the content of the rdf:about attribute is prefixed by > > a '#' character > > and URI encoded." > > > > shouldn't that be > > > > "except the content of the rdf:ID attribute"? > > Hmm, how about: > > "Usage of an rdf:ID attribute to identify the subject of a > description, is > equivalent to usage of an rdf:about attribute with the the '#' > character followed by the URI-encoded form of the content rdf:ID > attribute." > > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf- > tests/rdfcore/rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about/ Much clearer. Thanks. > > I agree with this, except that perhaps rdf:ID should simply be > > suppressed. > > I'd like that, but I don't see how to do it within the > constraints of our charter. > > >> Proposal 2: No writeup available yet > >> Generate rdfs:isDefinedBy triples when rdf:ID is used. > > > > Interesting. I'll have to give this some thought. A write-up > > with examples > > would be quite helpful. > > Basically, it'd be something like: > > <http://example.org/test1.rdf#foo> rdfs:isDefinedBy > <http://example.org/test1.rdf> . > > In addition to the usual stuff. I'm still missing something. Given the following example: <rdf:Description rdf:ID="aga" xmlns:x="http://rdfs.hellas.com"> <x:ending>memnon</x:ending> <x:ref rdf:resource="http://hellas.com/aga"> </rdf:Description> What would be the isDefinedBy triple added here? > >> Are there issues that you would like to see RDF Core address > >> right away? Please let us know: > > Clarifying rdf:value. I change my mind about what it *really* > > means everytime > > I read the spec or see an example. If it isn't in the grammar > > because it's > > merely an RDF property, then this should be clearly explained, > > and preferably > > the semantics of this property should be elucidated. > > > > I know there's already an issue open for this. I just think > > it's a matter of > > priority because of the numerous interpretations. > > Thanks, I've told the WG about this. > > See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0051 I was unable to get to this page (network error). -- Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com +1 303 583 9900 x 101 Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com 4735 East Walnut St, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA XML strategy, XML tools (http://4Suite.org), knowledge management
Received on Saturday, 14 July 2001 03:46:56 UTC