W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2003

Re: WebArch Ambiguity about Objects, PLUS Suggested Major Replacement

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 13:23:15 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030102131710.0389a790@127.0.0.1>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

At 12:32 PM 12/30/02 -0500, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>      Designers should be careful, however, to distinguish between
>      places where a web address is used to directly identify a web
>      page and those where it is used in this indirect manner to
>      identify something described on the web page.  (This is true
>      regardless of the use of fragment identifiers in web addresses;
>      they simply involve a portion of a web page.)
>
>I wonder how much of this statement the TAG agrees with.....   I
>wonder how the RDF community would feel about that last paragraph.

I, for one, have no disagreement with this final paragraph.  But there's 
something unsaid, which maybe doesn't need to be said in this context.  In 
RDF, the referent of a URIref with fragment cannot be assumed to be a part 
of the referent of the same URI without fragment identifier.  Any such 
relationship, if it exists, needs to be stated separately.

Suppose we have:
   someuri:Unicorn
and
   someuri:Unicorn#leftHindLeg
used in some RDF description.  Absent further information, we cannot assume 
that the second URIref denotes a part of the thing denoted by the first URIref.

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2003 14:50:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:15 GMT