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

Re: Last Call: draft-w3c-rdfcore-rdfxml-mediatype-00 ready to submit?

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 18:46:34 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020326183003.03a22ec0@joy.songbird.com>
To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
A last call for a first draft ;-)

Aaron, this looks good and I see no reason not to publish it.  I do have a 
comment below for consideration, maybe in a later round.

At 11:31 AM 3/26/02 -0600, Aaron Swartz wrote:
>Since I haven't gotten any comments the past few days, I was wondering if it
>was alright to submit my most recent draft-draft of the media type
>registration. It'll be published as an IETF Internet-Draft, essentailly an
>IETF work-in-progress working draft.
>
>Brian, since I'd like to label it as coming from the WG, what process should
>I go thru. Do we have to sign off on it at a telecon or can I just send it
>in?

Brian, in private exchanges I recommended that this be released fairly soon 
to give the IETF community time to review it and get used to the idea that 
it's coming.  Releasing an Internet Draft is a very informal affair -- 
possibly even less so than releasing a W3C working draft -- so there's no 
sense of commitment implied.  As long as nobody's going to be embarassed by 
the content I see no reason not to publish.

When it has been published, I would be happy to ask Ned Freed (IETF area 
director and a leading author of the MIME specs) for advice on how to make 
sure the (IETF-tree) MIME registration can be approved as soon as possible 
after our documents are published as recommendations.

>4. Fragment Identifiers
>
>    Section 4.1 of the URI specification [5] notes that the semantics of
>    a fragment identifier (part of a URI after a "#") is a property of
>    the data resulting from a retrieval action, and that the format and
>    interpretation of fragment identifiers is dependent on the media type
>    of the retrieval result.
>
>    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.  This differs from some readings of the
>    URI specification [5], so attention is recommended when creating new
>    RDF terms which use fragment identifiers.
>
>    The rdf:ID and rdf:about attributes can be used to define fragments
>    in an RDF document.

When I reviewed this bit earlier, I didn't stand back far enough.

What is needed to specify here, I think, is the meaning of a fragment 
identifier when applied to an RDF document URI, as opposed to one _used_ in 
an RDF document.  Maybe something like this?:

[[[
A fragment identifier applied to an RDF document refers to the RDF resource 
defined within the document using an rdf:ID attribute whose value is the 
fragment identifier, or equivalently identified using an rdf:about 
attribute with the document URI and fragment identifier.
]]]

Hmmm... that's not quite right either:  that's what _RDF_ means, but what 
should a general web rendering engine (not RDF) -- e.g. an ordinary web 
browser -- do with an identifier <http://example.org/somedoc.rdf#fragid> 
?   Would it be all the statements about the resource thus identified?  A 
concatenation of the description elements thus identified, contained in an 
enclosing <rdf:RDF> element?

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2002 13:45:15 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:46:22 EDT