W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > October to December 2002

Re: XPointer

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 12:41:51 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021129123134.03b8ca90@127.0.0.1>
To: Roland Schwaenzl <Roland.Schwaenzl@mathematik.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE>
Cc: dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk, www-rdf-comments@w3.org

At 02:58 PM 11/28/02 +0100, Roland Schwaenzl wrote:
>What kind of retrieval action specifically is assumed in RDF Concepts 5.2
>(compare the NOTE in [RFC 3023, 7.]).

None at all:

[[
someurl#frag means the thing that is indicated, according to the rules of 
the application/rdf+xml MIME content-type as a "fragment" or "view" of the 
RDF document at someurl. If the document does not exist, or cannot be 
retrieved, then exactly what that view may be is somewhat undetermined, but 
that does not prevent use of RDF to say things about it.
]]
-- http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-concepts-20021108/#xtocid103660

If that's not clear, maybe we need to add a couple of words to make it 
unmistakable.

>My understanding of RDF Semantics is, that it does not require
>the existence of an RDF/XML document representing the URI, presumed
>in your first reference, when a URI#fragement is used in an RDF
>graph.

Correct.

Hmmm... We say:
[[
we assume that the URI part (i.e. excluding fragment identifier) indicates 
a Web resource with an RDF representation. So when someurl#frag is used in 
an RDF document, someurl is presumed to designate an RDF document.
]]
-- http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-concepts-20021108/#xtocid103660

I think the original proposal from which these words were deribed said 
something like "presumed to designate a (possibly notional) RDF document" 
-- would that be better?

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Friday, 29 November 2002 07:50:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:31 GMT