- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 15:29:23 +0000
- To: Ian Davis <lists@iandavis.com>
- CC: Leigh Dodds <leigh.dodds@talis.com>, Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
Ian Davis wrote: > On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: > >> Any advance? > > I've written on it extensively and linked to two pieced in my recent > 303 blog post: > > http://iand.posterous.com/2007/11/fragmentation-reprise The core of the problem is that hashed URIs are inherently ambiguous. Its meaning depends on how you access it, which is nuts. Its as though a word has different meanings depending on whether you read it in a book or have it read out to you. No the meaning of any RDF URI Reference is the meaning which you give to it by making statements which include it, it's just a logical constant, a name. > http://iand.posterous.com/2007/11/its-ok-to-use-uris-with-fragments-in-rdf sigh, in to the depths of pedantic serialization specific minor age old issues which have never been proven to affect anything really we go: ... further away from today's web of documents. For example, when I use "http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#media-type-fragid" as a URI in my RDF, it probably doesn't refer to the thing you think it does. You, as a human (if you are), get to see a representation of that section of the document when you click on the link, but an RDF-aware agent must treat that URI as though rdf/xml had been retrieved. Can you expand on what that means, because all I'm seeing is if an RDF-aware agent did "treat that URI as though rdf/xml had been retrieved" then it wouldn't have a description of the thing identified by <http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#media-type-fragid> == no problem. Unfortunately there isn't any RDF there and the Web Architecture actually forbids you from serving up both HTML and RDF documents at the same URI. Better clear that up, noticed that it's an age old XHTML-RDFa potential issue, so I'll see if we can get it covered in the WG and relay back to the TAG to hopefully clear the issue. AFAIK though, there is nothing stopping you from serving HTML and RDF documents at the same URI, in fact that would mean you can't serve up RDFa, which clearly is incorrect. How can RDF co-exist with other formats on the Web if it ignores their semantics? Either you mean that RDF should be aware of the semantics of every media type on the web, or your saying that an RDF Graph should somehow be aware of something it's not aware of (it's just statements, names and literals) - or your making reference to the Generic processing of Fragment IDs in RFC 3023bis issue around rdf:ID. Quite sure this doesn't affect any other serializations (since they're not XML based), so from that standpoint all of this is purely RDF/XML specific, and could be fixed / cleared. Was hoping for something of more substance with some kind of real technical effect, not a path in to the depths of minor differences between various specifications published over a decade long time line tbh, something tangible. Best, Nathan
Received on Friday, 5 November 2010 15:30:36 UTC