RE: Regarding 6. Fragment Identifiers in (RDF-ISSUE-141)

Hello Sebastian,

Thanks for your comments and questions. I've created RDF-ISSUE-141 [1] to
keep track of them. You will soon receive an official response.

Kind regards,


Markus Lanthaler

----------- Original Message ----------
From: Sebastian Hellmann [] 
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 4:44 PM
Subject: Regarding 6. Fragment Identifiers in

Hello all,
during my talk to Ivan (see other email) he pointed me to the changes made
in the new working draft regarding the section Fragment Identifier.

Current recommendation:
New draft:

Actually, I could live quite well with the old recommendation, but I have
some questions regarding the new draft section.

Especially, I was looking at: 

It 303 redirects to HTML anchor within a table row at
      <th colspan="2"><a id="Collection"
href="#Collection">skos:Collection</a> </th>
Q1: to what does #Collection actually refer to? The anchor element, the text
in the element or the whole tree, i.e. the current element, the text and all
subelements , ok it's not very deep here, but you know what I mean. There is
a difference, between a single node in a tree, the attributes of this node,
the content of this node and the subtree with the node at its head. 

the fragment chapter1 may identify a document section via the semantics of
HTML's @name or @id attributes. The IRI <#chapter1> should then be taken to
denote that same section in any RDFa-encoded triples within the same
document. Similarly, if the @xml:id attribute [XML-ID] is used in an RDF/XML
document, then the corresponding IRI should be taken to denote an XML

I am quite sure that the IRI 
denotes more than the above mentioned anchor element. Is the sentence in the
new working draft only relevant for RDFa+XTHML  ?

Q3: Does a fragment identifier in an application/rdf+xml or text/turtle 
information resource refer to (1) the actual content in the file or (2) the
IRI in the RDF Graph or (3) the external "thing" or all three of them?
Looking at . Is this
now something in line 53 <rdf:Description rdf:about="#Collection"> or "A
collection of concepts"

Q4: Reading the old recommendation, use of fragment id for text/plain (RFC
5147) in the RDF based NLP Interchange Format[1] was consistent. With the
new text I am not sure.

Is there anything wrong with this in RDF 1.1:

Case 1: 
curl -H "Accept: application/rdf+xml"

(note that the URI
s+Natalie+Portman#char=0,39 denotes the Unicode character sequence  in the
nif:isString property.) . 

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf=""

    <nif:isString>My favourite actress is Natalie Portman</nif:isString>


Case 2:
curl -H "Accept: text/plain"
returns 39 characters: 
"My favourite actress is Natalie Portman"

Sorry, if this has been discussed before.
All the best,


Dipl. Inf. Sebastian Hellmann
Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig 
* NLP & DBpedia 2013 (, Extended
Deadline: *July 18th*)
* LSWT 23/24 Sept, 2013 in Leipzig ( 
Venha para a Alemanha como PhD:
Projects: , , ,
Research Group:

Received on Saturday, 24 August 2013 15:25:26 UTC