Re: Resolution for rdfms-fragments

On 2001-12-06 5:44 PM, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org> wrote:

>> Here is a simple resolution to the rdfms-fragments issue. Define that as
>> URI-refs are turned back into full URIs (thru the base URI), if a '#' exists
>> it is encoded as %23.
> 
> and if %23 already occurs in the URI reference, then what?

It stays that way.

> I re-read the entry in the issues list
> http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-fragments

I note, that in visiting this URL one piece of code seems to already
implement this idea: my email client. ;-/

> Can you point out which part of whatever spec bugs you?

[[[
If a fragment identifier is included in the URI-reference then the resource
identifier refers only to a subcomponent of the containing resource; this
subcomponent is identifed by the corresponding anchor id internal to that
containing resource and the extent of the subcomponent is defined by the
fragment identifier in conjunction with the content type of the containing
resource, otherwise the resource identifier refersto the entire item
specified by the URI.
]]]
 - http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222
   Resource Description Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax Specification

By this definition, <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#value> would
either refer to an XPath node set (via the XPointer spec), or just
<http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns>.

> Or give a use case that you think is insufficiently
> specified? (i.e. not a foo/bar/baz example)

I don't know what http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#value means.

> Or some piece of code that's acting funny,
> or difficult to write or interoperate with?

Well, the entire installed base of HTTP servers would be a good place to
start, seeing as they don't support URIs with fragments. Similarly, systems
like WebDAV or access control built on top of that don't support them. Add
on to that everyone with a tool that conforms to the URI RFC.  Finally,
their mapping to Resources isn't well defined, or defined at all depending
on your point of view.

Basically, RDF isn't compatible with the rest of the (non-W3C) Web.

I guess another solution would be to just rename RDF to be Random
Description Framework or something, and not claim that the things it
described were Resources.

-- 
[ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ]

Received on Thursday, 6 December 2001 19:18:31 UTC