W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > May 2011

Re: FragIds in semantic web (ACTION-543)

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 18:53:21 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTinGDrCP4NWM6EpEnJKUO9SuechWCA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Cc: "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
For what it's worth - and backing up your point that RDF seems to be
doing its own thing with fragids independent of what 3986 says - of
the many RDF serialization format registrations either completed or in
progress, the only one that says anything about fragids is
application/rdf+xml (RFC 3870).

Turtle and N3 are registered:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/text/turtle
http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/text/n3
but say nothing about fragids.

OWL Manchester, Functional, and XML are submitted and in progress, and
say nothing. And of course, as I said, text/html and application/xml
also say nothing.

This state of affairs reinforces the RDFa view that updating the
registrations is either unnecessary or unimportant. If Turtle doesn't
do it, why should RDFa do it? (ACTION-509) Maybe this is right, I
don't know.

If we end up deciding this is important, we might consider updating
the W3C guide on registering media types
http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype
to urge consideration of fragids, since this document is very likely
what the authors of all the above registrations consulted. That
doesn't solve the problem in general, but it would be a start.

(thanks for help from Eric P, Ivan H, and Sandro H)

Jonathan
Received on Friday, 6 May 2011 22:53:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:35 GMT