W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > November 2011

Wording tweaks in Fragment Identifier section

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:47:53 +0000
Message-Id: <22266783-2455-48B4-997F-B16982760CC9@cyganiak.de>
Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
To: Yves Raimond <Yves.Raimond@bbc.co.uk>, Gavin Carothers <gavin@topquadrant.com>
Hi Yves, hi Gavin,

You mentioned in the call that you didn't like this sentence from the RDF Concepts 1.1 ED:

Since IRIs in RDF graphs can denote anything, this can be something external to the representation, or even external to the “shared information space” known as the Web.

In my defense, it's pretty much lifted straight from RDF Concepts 2004:

the RDF treatment of a fragment identifier allows it to indicate a thing that is entirely external to the document, or even to the "shared information space" known as the Web. That is, it can be a more general idea, like some particular car or a mythical Unicorn.

I'm inclined to leave the sentence as is. Because … uhm … by getting rid of the Unicorn, the new version is already so vastly improved over the 2004 version that any further changes would just be petty nitpicking ;-)

Explicitly calling out that fragIDs can identify other things than just document parts is sensible here IMO.

Gavin, you mentioned you had problems making sense of the last sentence. I changed it to:

Likewise, RDF graphs embedded in non-RDF representations with mechanism such as RDFa [RDFA-PRIMER] should use fragment identifiers consistently with the semantics imposed by the host language.

Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2011 22:48:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:02 UTC