W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > February 2004

Re: pound sign vs. slash as final URI delimiter

From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 08:08:02 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040217080026.037c0ec0@127.0.0.1>
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

At 02:11 PM 2/17/2004 +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote:
>There is no guaruntee that the base
>URI will denote and resolve to an RDF/XML instance, nor is there
>any guaruntee that the fragment identifier will occur as the
>value of an rdf:ID attribute.

But this is entirely under the control of the issuer of the URI.
I.e. if you cannot promise that

  GET http://mydomain.com/foo HTTP/1.1

returns something relevant to the resource whose identifier
is http://mydomain.com/foo#bar then you should use some
other service than mydomain.com.

> Furthermore, even if the fragment
>identifier occurs in an rdf:ID attribute, that doesn't mean
>that the element bearing that attribute contains the complete
>definition of that resource, even in that particular RDF/XML
>instance, as there can be other elements with rdf:resource
>and the full URI defining additional statements about the
>resource.

Certainly.  This is true of every resource on the Semantic Web.
"Anyone can say anything ...".  This is a design principle.

>In short, trying to rely on HTML-like fragment identifier
>resolution to obtain authoritative definitions of terms
>simply does not work in a sufficiently general and scalable
>fashion for arbitrary RDF encoded knowledge.

I disagree, though we might be quibbling about the application
of the word "arbitrary".  Certainly as you have shown there are
implications below the level of RDF.  But fragment identifiers
can work and their use is one way to solve the ambiguity
between documents and other things.

-Ralph
Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2004 08:09:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:58 UTC