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

Re: pfps-15 say anything quote

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 18:38:06 -0400
Message-ID: <3F32D4CE.40401@mitre.org>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
CC: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com, www-rdf-comments@w3.org


Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
> Subject: Re: pfps-15 say anything quote
> Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 15:45:25 -0400
> 
> [I'm not particularly worried about the caveat stuff.]
> 


Fine.  But I'm going to go ahead with the added reification caveat I 
mentioned.


> 
>>>I wish that the Primer didn't use URI references without fragment IDs so
>>>much.  I think that it would also be a good idea to use the redirected
>>>versions of the DC elements, as they are URI references with fragment
>>>identifiers.
>>>
>>It seems to me there'a reasonable distribution of both kinds of URIrefs, 
>>and since both kinds are legal, and the WG hasn't taken an offical 
>>position (as far as I know) on this issue, I thought I'd better be 
>>"unbiased" in the Primer (Syntax is similarly "unbiased").
>>
> 
> This use of URI references without fragment IDs can lead to a
> confusion between documents and resources.  It is not a big issue for me,
> but it may be for others.  (Who, apparently, have not complained.)


I understand (but I don't know that I think making a distinction in the 
form of the URI is necessarily the way to handle this;  after all, who 
says you won't want to refer to a fragment of or place in a document?). 
  I just think that, as things stand, the Primer needs to be agnostic 
about how to handle the document vs. resources issue.  That debate will 
go on anyway.


> 
> 
>>I'm not sure what you mean about "the redirected versions of the DC 
>>elements".  As far as I know, the official URI assigned to the DC terms 
>>continues to not use fragment IDs, e.g., 
>>http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title.  Can you clarify?
>>
> 
> When I type http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title in to my browser, the
> URI that comes back is http://dublincore.org/2003/03/24/dces#title, which I
> think is much in keeping with the RDF philosophy on such URIs.


Well, yeah.  But http://dublincore.org/documents/2003/03/04/dcmi-terms/ 
says:

"Anchors have been embedded in this document so that users may cite a 
particular entry with the form 
"http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#term-name" (e.g., 
"http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#title"). While this form of 
citation is supported for documentary convenience, note that the URI 
assigned to each term in accordance with the DCMI Namespace Policy 
serves as its unique identifier (e.g., 
"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title") "


I just think the Primer needs to cite the "official" URI for the DC terms in this case.


--Frank




-- 
Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Thursday, 7 August 2003 18:13:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:32 GMT