W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > August 2009

Re: Historical - Re: Proposed IETF/W3C task force: "Resource meaning" Review of new HTTPbis text for 303 See Other

From: Ian Davis <lists@iandavis.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 01:21:44 +0100
Message-ID: <ec8613a80908051721u4be12385xf4867b9bc06ab0ee@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, W3C TAG <www-tag@w3.org>
Great summary Tim.

On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 3:14 AM, Tim Berners-Lee<timbl@w3.org> wrote:
> Two snags occurred, as the years passed.  One was that a bunch of RDF users
> got the fact that it was good to use HTTP URIs, but didn't get the fact that
> you should put the foo.rdf online so that people can look up what #color
> means in it.  And as they didn't do that, they didn't actually bother with
> the "#" at all.  The second fly in the ointment was that some people wanting
> to use RDF for large systems found that they didn't want to use the "#".
> This was sometimes because the number of things defined in the same file was
> too low (like 1) or too large (like a million) and it was difficult to
> divide up the information into middle-sized chunks. Or they just didn't like
> the "#" because it looks weird. But for one reason or another people
> demanded the right to be able to use http://example.net/people/Pat to denote
> Pat rather than a web page about Pat.
> This potentially led to huge failures in the whole RDF world, with systems
> already built which just used   "http://example.net/people/Pat" to identify
> the document whether you like it or not.
> I among others pushed back against using non-hash URIs for arbitrary things
> his but eventually gave in.

Are we in a position to unify the  HTML and RDF fragment semantics so
we can safely content negotiate the two formats? Especially now we
have wider use of RDFa?

In http://www.w3.org/mid/5D85BD4B-C366-400C-B095-B13352D73F43@w3.org
you suggested it was OK to negotiate these formats so long as the same
fragment was not not used as an anchor and a thing.

That's quite hard to achieve consistently in practice. As an example
see http://creativecommons.org/ns where
http://creativecommons.org/ns#Work is both an anchor and an rdfs:Class

Ian
Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 00:22:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:15 GMT