rdfms-syntax-incomplete from Jeremy Carroll on 2002-07-16 (w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org from July 2002) (original) (raw)

Proposal in brief:

• use attribute rdf:node to associate node identifiers with blank nodes.
• file scoped identifier.
• any XML string is legal blank node identifier.

Full resolution:

• reopen issue rdfms-syntax-incomplete
• add an attribute rdf:node to the RDF/XML syntax.
• modify the syntax to permit rdf:node in place of rdf:about.
• such a use associates the value of the attribute as a file scoped identifier for the blank node
• modify the syntax to permit rdf:node in place of rdf:resource.
• such a use associates the value of the attribute as a file scoped identifier for the blank node
• any two blank nodes arising from the same RDF/XML file with the same identifier are the same blank node
• action syntax editor to update the document to reflect this
• rdf:node is not permitted as an element name in RDF/XML
• action jjc to produce test cases
• action daveb to update rdfms-names-use to reflect rdf:node
• close issue

======

The chair was keen that we avoid too much discussion. I would like to highlight the choicepoints.

• use of attribute rather than pseudoURI

One possibility was to use "_:label" in place of urirefs on the rdf:about and rdf:resource attributes. People said they did not like this idea. It would have less clarity but greater backward compatibility.

• use of file scope rather than global scode node identifiers

The scope of the identifiers is the same as the scope of identifiers in N-triples, i.e. the file. Some use cases point to a need for global scope blank node identifiers (e.g. talking about a node within a graph for later updates to the graph). This seems to me to be a separate issue, and addressing it would constitute a greater change to RDF. (global scope means world-wide, like uris).

• use of one attributes for both subject and object position rather than two.

The current syntax uses two attributes for URI refs. rdf:about on typed nodes and descriptions and rdf:resource on property elements. Since these two contexts are distinct there is no ambiguity in using the same attribute name for both. It may be less confusing to have rdf:aboutNodeIdentifier and rdf:resourceNodeIdentifier for the two different roles.

• choice of a short attribute name

rdf:node seemed about the shortest clear name for the attribute.

Jeremy

Received on Tuesday, 16 July 2002 14:48:28 UTC