W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > November 2002

Re: [Fwd: Are we elements or animals? (was: Use of fragment identifiers in XML)]

From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 14:56:25 -0500
Message-ID: <005801c2843c$41f78580$84001d12@w3.org>
To: "Miles Sabin" <miles@milessabin.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Miles Sabin" <miles@milessabin.com>
To: <www-tag@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 8:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Are we elements or animals? (was: Use of fragment
identifiers in XML)]


>
> pat hayes wrote,
> > Nothing outside of RDF can specify what meaning RDF assigns to a
> > string of characters containing a hash mark.


In the case where the bit to the left of the hash mark identifies a
real or notional RDF document.

> True enough. But equally, nothing inside of RDF can specify what
> meanings other systems, formal or informal, might assign to the very
> same string of characters.

In the case where the bit to the left of the hash mark does *not* identify
a real or notional RDF document.

> In the absence of additional contextual information (eg. as provided in
> this case by the media type Aaron's proposing) that means that the
> string of characters is ambiguous: could denote a dog or an element or
> whatever. And some folks round here just don't like ambiguity.

It isn't really ambiguous.  There are cases -- times -- where a given person
may not know
much about the thing it identifies.  But that does *not* mean it identifies
two things at the same time.

Tim

> That being so, I don't think they really have very much option but to
> take this route ... I just wish they'd do it consistently across the
> board and start thinking about specifing a richer set of disambiguating
> mechanisms.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Miles
>
Received on Monday, 4 November 2002 14:56:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:12 GMT