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

Re: 2002-02-25#19, Fragment identifiers, words for the primer

From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 19:11:40 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020312190008.039840c0@joy.songbird.com>
To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 10:24 AM 3/12/02 -0600, Aaron Swartz wrote:
>Modifying Graham's version:
>
> > In standard usage for web document retrieval, the representation 
> accessed by
> > a URL with a fragment identifier is related to the representation accessed
> > by the URL alone, in a way that depends on the MIME type of the document
> > representation retrieved.  However, in RDF, the thing identified by a URI
> > with fragment identifier does not bear any particular relationship to the
> > thing identified by the URI alone.
>
>Add:
>
>This contradicts some readings of the URI specification[RFC2396], so caution
>is recommended when creating new RDF terms which use fragment identifiers.

I think that's too strong, on two counts "contradicts" and 
"caution".  Here's something I think says the same idea without appearing 
to create a conflict with RFC 2396 or scaring users away from using fragments:

[[[
The URI specification [RFC2396] describes URIs with emphasis on their use 
for Web document retrieval, so be aware that the RDF use of fragment 
identifiers may appear to vary in some respects.  In particular, when using 
RDF, do not assume that a URI with fragment identifier denotes a part of a 
document identified by the base URI.
]]]

#g



-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2002 14:08:03 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:46:17 EDT