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

[Closed] RE: The FragId issue

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 01:15:17 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030305011450.02535ce0@127.0.0.1>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Massimo Marchiori" <massimo@w3.org>
Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>

Brian, I'm noting this as an editorial issue.

#g
--

At 16:28 04/03/2003 +0100, Massimo Marchiori wrote:

>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.
>
>Ciao,
>-M
>
> > -----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
> >

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2003 17:04:46 GMT

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