- From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 18:18:28 -0600
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
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