- From: Yves Raimond <Yves.Raimond@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 10:10:19 +0000
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: Gavin Carothers <gavin@topquadrant.com>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Hello! > > 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 ;-) > Heh :-) I agree getting rid of the Unicorn was a very good thing! The only reason I don't like the sentence is that "shared information space", in quotes, which doesn't read very spec-y (and might be confusing for new readers). Would something like the following work? "or event to the 'shared information space' known as the Web" => "or even to the Web"? > Explicitly calling out that fragIDs can identify other things than just document parts is sensible here IMO. Oh yes, I definitely agree on that. Best, y > > > 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 Thursday, 17 November 2011 10:11:05 UTC