[rdfweb-dev] resource = #

[Dan Brickley]

* Bill Kearney <ml_yahoo at i...> [2003-01-11 06:34-0500]
> > The issue of references to descriptions later in the file is not the
> > problem. It's that extra #. rdf:resource="#xxx" pointing to
> > rdf:ID="#xxx" looks wrong to me if only because <a href> and <a name> in
> > html uses #xxx to point at xxx. I would think there must be an RDF spec
> > somewhere that defines correct behaviour for this which would invalidate
> > #xxx pointing to #xxx. Or rather would result in the description not
> > being found because there was no ID="xxx" anywhere in the file.
> 
> Isn't it that rdf:ID="xxx" defines the element and rdf:resource="#xxx" defines a
> reference to it? The lack of any leading portion of the URI denotes that it's a
> local, in-document reference. While rdf:ID=http://someURI#xxx and
> rdf:resource=http://someURI#xxx are likewise the same making use of an external
> document and both indicating the rdf::ID="xxx" within the http://someURI
> document. I've not seen or used an rdf:ID="#xxx".

rdf:ID only takes simple names, and effectively sets up a thing for resource= or
about= to reference.

It is the same pattern as HTML's <a href="#foo">a link to</a> <a name="foo">an anchor</a>,
perhaps pointing that out might help folk remember how it works?

Dan (remembering being very confused by HTML first time he met it)