W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2002

Re: URIs vs. URIviews (was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-02-15)

From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 19:57:25 -0600
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B891C725.20BA5%me@aaronsw.com>
On 2002-02-14 2:46 PM, "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:

>> Particularly, I'm worried about the URI-vs-URIviews issue, which I
>> thought we agreed to put on the issues list, but I don't seem to see it.
> I don't remember that.  There is no such issue on the list.  My bad maybe?

Hmm, I remember (Dave Beckett, I think it was) trying to close some issue
and I asked that a new issue be put on the table. Maybe I'm thinking of
something else...
 
> Side show just for fun: not the main thrust this response:  the domain of
> rdf:type is rdf:Resource, right?  Therefore a fragment is also a
> resource.  Therefore it can be named by a URI.  What URI?  If there was a
> general way to turn a URI with fragid into a URI, we'd be fine?  The other
> format would just be syntactic shorthand.

Sure, I came up with a proposal for this once, but I recall it being
dismissed as crazily strange. I'd have no problem with that.

http://example.org/foo#bar
 ->
 http://example.org/foo?frag=bar
 or maybe
 http://www.w3.org/2002/02-frag/?uri=http://example.org/foo&frag=bar

>> [...later...]
>>> (d) choose namespace names that end in non-xml-name-characters
>>> such as / # ?
>> 
>> I think perhaps we should provide some warning about using # in namespace
>> names, dependent on the resolution of rdfms-fragments.
> 
> The way I've been thinking about this is that (I think) I can see
> a model for URI's with frag id's that would work for RDF as is.
> We've passed this issue to the TAG for consideration.  If they rule
> the right way we need do nothing.  If the rule differently, then

What is the right way? RDF may be able to work as is, it's the rest of the
Web working with RDF that I'm worried about.

> RDF will have to change, but it should have a solid definition of
> what a URI plus frag id denotes to work with.

Hmm, can you provide a pointer to your email? I didn't see it on the issue
list or in the www-tag archives.

> What I'd rather avoid is making a change, then having to change
> again when the TAG rules, assuming it accepts the task.
> 
> You're approach of warning "here be dragons" is interesting.
> 
> I'd like to hear from the folks with knowledge of user communities
> (PRISM, DC, CC/PP, ...) their reaction to this suggestion.

I've explained this to the Dublin Core and they are continuing to use (as
they have always done) namespaces without '#'s.

> Hmm, now I've got a list of actions somewhere that need doing ...

I hope they're identified by URIs and not URIviews. ;-)

-- 
[ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ]
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 20:57:29 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:45:11 EDT