W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2003

RE: The FragId issue

From: Massimo Marchiori <massimo@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:28:20 +0100
To: "Graham Klyne" <GK@ninebynine.org>
Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>

Thanks Graham, I think we have resolved the ambiguities. I agree in all with you that then this just boils down to writing some wise
editorial smoothing, which I'll leave to your ability :)
In any case I'm more than satisfied with the clarification archived here.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Graham Klyne [mailto:GK@ninebynine.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 1:33 PM
> To: Massimo Marchiori
> Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
> Subject: RE: The FragId issue
> At 01:32 AM 3/1/03 +0100, Massimo Marchiori wrote:
> > > I don't have a formal meaning for "indicate a Web resource with an RDF
> > > representation", though I thought the intent was clear enough.  Maybe I
> > > should say "identify a Web resource with an RDF representation", or even
> > > just "Identify a web resource, which is presumed to have an RDF
> > > representation".  (I'll assert that *any* resource has an arbitrary number
> > > of RDF representations, so this doesn't create any new constraints.)
> >
> >Okay, I see, thanks for the clarification. The confusion I had here lies
> >in what the word "presumed" stays for. As you say it, it
> >looks like a very weak "presume", i.e.,
> >a) it is not an rfc2119 SHOULD, and
> >b) it's generally unspecified the way you actually retrieve the "presumed"
> >RDF representation of a resource
> >
> >Correct?
> Yes.  It looks as if an editorial clarification is in order.  (It seems
> that "presumed" can be misleading.)
> > > The point about URIs not necessarily being dereferencable as RDF is
> > > explicitly addressed:
> > > [[
> > > eg: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 eg: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.
> > > ]]
> >
> >I'm a bit confused, so let me give a use case:
> >you use in RDF http//www.example.com/foo.xml#minnie
> >You can actually retrieve it, but it's an XML (not RDF) file (so, not with
> >application/rdf+xml).
> >So, does this clash with the proposed fragid view?
> No clash that I see.  That is, according to the REST model (as I understand
> it), a Web resource can have many different representations.  Browsers that
> deal with different representations use different rules for handling
> fragment identifiers applied to different representations.  RDF does not
> deal specifically with representations, and the fragment identifier
> handling is referred to the rules for a (possibly notional) RDF representation.
> >Note this is related to point b) above (if the answer to b is yes, then I
> >think the above usage is fine, and maybe I see what you
> >wanted to say :).
> I think we're in agreement, then, but I'd like to see if the words couldn't
> be clearer.
> If you're happy with the intent as expressed here, I'll take this as a
> matter for editorial clarification.
> #g
> -------------------
> Graham Klyne
> <GK@NineByNine.org>
> PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Tuesday, 4 March 2003 10:29:04 GMT

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