- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:47:53 +0000
- To: Yves Raimond <Yves.Raimond@bbc.co.uk>, Gavin Carothers <gavin@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Hi Yves, hi Gavin, You mentioned in the call that you didn't like this sentence from the RDF Concepts 1.1 ED: [[ Since IRIs in RDF graphs can denote anything, this can be something external to the representation, or even external to the “shared information space” known as the Web. ]] In my defense, it's pretty much lifted straight from RDF Concepts 2004: [[ the RDF treatment of a fragment identifier allows it to indicate a thing that is entirely external to the document, or even to the "shared information space" known as the Web. That is, it can be a more general idea, like some particular car or a mythical Unicorn. ]] I'm inclined to leave the sentence as is. Because … uhm … by getting rid of the Unicorn, the new version is already so vastly improved over the 2004 version that any further changes would just be petty nitpicking ;-) Explicitly calling out that fragIDs can identify other things than just document parts is sensible here IMO. Gavin, you mentioned you had problems making sense of the last sentence. I changed it to: [[ Likewise, RDF graphs embedded in non-RDF representations with mechanism such as RDFa [RDFA-PRIMER] should use fragment identifiers consistently with the semantics imposed by the host language. ]] Best, Richard
Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2011 22:48:22 UTC