- From: Nikita Ogievetsky <nogievet@cogx.com>
- Date: 2001年7月23日 12:07:21 -0400
- To: "Aaron Swartz" <me@aaronsw.com>
- Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>, "RDF-Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OE32Og7xJ4Yo5ofpz760000207f@hotmail.com>
Aaron, Thanks for your answers and sorry for somewhat cluttered questions :-) I will try to be more specific. > > 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. Yes, this is clear now. Originally I wrongly understood that you are suggesting to deprecate (suppress) one of them and that was unclear. <--Uche said: |> I agree with this, except that perhaps rdf:ID should simply be suppressed. Aaron said: | I'd like that, but I don't see how to do it within the constraints of our charter. --> > >>> <daml:Class rdf:about="#Person"/> .... > >>> <daml:Class rdf:resource="#Person"/> ... > One defines #Person as the subject, the other as the object. Wow! this is very intuitive indeed. Why did not I guess it? :-)) There is still one more thing for which I would very much appreciate some help: Can you suggest a triple (or N3) representation for this fragment: <daml:Class rdf:ID="Car"/> <daml:Class rdf:ID="Person"/> <daml:Disjoint rdf:parseType="daml:collection"> <daml:Class rdf:about="#Car"/> <daml:Class rdf:about="#Person"/> </daml:Disjoint> Thanks, --Nikita.
Received on Monday, 23 July 2001 12:59:25 UTC