- From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:22:41 -0500
- To: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Here is a draft message to the TAG, per my action item. Comments? ---------------------------------------------------------- SYNOPSIS: Is it okay to have the same URI identify both a location within an HTML document and a concept in an ontology? What is the class of "information resources"? Would the TAG wish to define a URI for it? Is it owl:disjointWith anything? WHY THIS MESSAGE? The SWBP working group wishes to note some confusion around the implications of the httpRange-14 decision[8], in the hope that future work by the TAG will clear up this confusion. However, the SWBP WG does *not* wish to press the TAG for an immediate resolution. More thought by appropriate experts is probably needed first, and the WG seems to be able to work around it at present. WHAT IS THE CONFUSION? The httpRange-14 decision says that if an HTTP GET of http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ returns a 2xx status, then http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ is an "information resource". The WebArch says that the meaning of the fragment identifier ("#me") is determined by the media type that is returned. In the case of HTML, it identifies a location with the HTML document. Therefore, according to the WebArch plus the httpRange-14 decision, http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/#me identifies a location within an HTML document. If Dan is also using http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/#me to identify a foaf:Person (for example by also serving RDF from http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ ), then the same URI is being used both to identify a foaf:Person and an "information resource". Is this okay? Pat Hayes does not see this as a problem, as he has eloquently explained[6]. However, the WebArch says that a URI should only identify one resource, so this behavior seems inconsistent with the WebArch. On the other hand, the WebArch also says that if multiple media types are served using content negotiation, then because the meaning of the fragment identifier could differ for different media types, the URI owner should ensure that all such meanings are "sufficiently consistent"[1] (and hence conceptually would still only identify a single resource). The WebArch also says that "The representation provider decides when definitions of fragment identifier semantics are are sufficiently consistent". Is it reasonable to think that the use of http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/#me as a location within a document would be "sufficiently consistent" with its use as a foaf:Person? A document seems very different from a person. In fact, one could well imagine the class of tag:Location-Within-An-HTML-Document as being owl:disjointWith foaf:Person. On the other hand, if it *is* reasonable to use http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/#me as both a location within a document and as a foaf:Person, then is it also reasonable to use http://example.org/foo as both an "information resource" and a foaf:Person? If not, why is a URI with a fragment identifier permitted to simultaneously identify such different things, while a URI without a fragment identifier is not. Furthermore, if http://example.org/foo return a 2xx response, does this represent an assertion such as (N3): <http://example.org/foo> a tag:InformationResource . If so, what can be concluded if the response code is other than 2xx, 4xx or 303? In general, what algorithm should be used to determine the meaning of a newly discovered URI? (See David Booth's attempt at writing down such an algorithm based on his reading of the WebArch and httpRange-14 decision.) Again, the SWBP WG is *not* asking for a resolution at the this time, but merely reporting the confusion that we have noticed. References [1] WebArch on fragment identifiers and content negotiation: http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#frag-coneg [2] TimBL thoughts on RDF in HTML: http://www.w3.org/2002/04/htmlrdf [3] TAG issue RDFinXHTML-35: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#RDFinXHTML-35 [4] RDF/A Primer: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2006-01-24-rdfa-primer [5] Alistair's issues on URI usage in RDF/A primer: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0113.html [6] Pat Hayes comments: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Feb/0011 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0153 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0139 [7] David Booth draft algorithm: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0116 [8] TAG's httpRange-14 decision: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/0039.html Sincerely, David Booth (on behalf of the SWBP working group)
Received on Wednesday, 15 February 2006 23:23:29 UTC