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

Re: FragIds in semantic web (ACTION-543)

From: Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 12:42:25 +0100
Message-ID: <4DC7D321.2050000@ninebynine.org>
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
CC: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
It's arguable that any syntax that claims to represent RDF makes implicit 
reference to http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-fragID.


Jonathan Rees wrote:
> 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 Monday, 9 May 2011 13:08:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:10 UTC