- From: M. David Peterson <m.david@xmlhacker.com>
- Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 13:07:38 -0600
- To: "r.j.koppes" <rikkert@rikkertkoppes.com>, "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org, "Lynn, James (Software Escalations)" <james.lynn@hp.com>
On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 12:51:49 -0600, r.j.koppes <rikkert@rikkertkoppes.com> wrote: > But if, on the web page http://www.example.com/mophor there is a section > with id "me", how do I refer to that particular section in the web page > in a RDF document (which might contain anything, even unrelated to me as > a person)? How do I make sure that the reader (machine / human) > interprets this reference as being a web location (fragment in web page) > instead of the thing, me. If there is any single thing in RDF that I could point at and state "there, > http://example.org/foo#bar < that's the problem with RDF" it would be that very same statement. There is a simple solution to the problem: You use '?' instead of '#'. This ensures that the thin, dumb client can remain thin and dumb, and the server can do the work to interpret what resource it should return using the query string to make that determination. I understand that from a human perspective, '#' makes sense. But if within the scope of RDF is "to make data human readable" then let me just make my position on this clear: That effort died a horrible, miserable death a *LONG* time ago. Let it go. In summary: The barriers to entry for RDF would become considerably less if the syntax was focused towards working with the current HTTP servers of the world as well as the thin, dumb clients of the world, instead of against them. -- /M:D M. David Peterson http://mdavid.name | http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/2354 | http://dev.aol.com/blog/3155
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2007 19:33:01 UTC