Re: [ALL] RDF/A Primer Version

It is of course conceivable that we are identifying a bug with the web 
architecture document rather than a bug in our use of URIs.

The space of URIs available for non-Information resources seems to be 
getting smaller and smaller, soon the Semantic Web will be disallowed by 
the Web Architecture document.


Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) wrote:
>> From: Miles, AJ (Alistair) [] 
>> I think that, because no element with the id attribute value 
>> "me" is actually present in the document, then current 
>> specifications [3,4] do not allow any conclusions about the 
>> nature of <#me> to be drawn from the content-type of the document.
> I don't think that's quite correct.  The WebArch makes no requirement
> that the fragment identifier actually exist in the retrieved document.
> The dependency is on whether a *representation* exists when the primary
> resource is dereferenced.  From WebArch sec 3.2.1:
> [[
> The semantics of a fragment identifier are defined by the set of
> representations that might result from a retrieval action on the primary
> resource. The fragment's format and resolution are therefore dependent
> on the type of a potentially retrieved representation, even though such
> a retrieval is only performed if the URI is dereferenced. If no such
> representation exists, then the semantics of the fragment are considered
> unknown and, effectively, unconstrained.
> ]]
> Thus, my interpretation of the WebArch is that if
> returns application/xhtml+xml, then RFC3236 applies, which states: 
> 	". . . fragment identifiers for XHTML documents designate 
> 	the element with the corresponding ID attribute value".  
> If no such element exists, then identifies a
> non-existent element.  The fact that no such element actually exists
> does not change the fact that that is what the URI identifies.  
>> . . .
>> Please note my position given at [7]: 'I support publication 
>> of this document as a Working Draft'. I do not think the 
>> publication of RDF/A as Working Draft should be delayed 
>> because of this particular discussion thread.
> I agree.  I think the warning that Ben has added is adequate.
> David Booth
>> [3]
>> [4]
>> [5] 
>> [6] 
>> [7] 

Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2006 17:55:20 UTC