W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2002

URIs vs. URIviews (was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-02-15)

From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:20:15 -0600
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B8916A0F.20989%me@aaronsw.com>
I notice that Brian seems ready to close all the little naggling issues. I
think this is great but I don't want to see some issues drop thru the
cracks. Particularly, I'm worried about the URI-vs-URIviews issue, which I
thought we agreed to put on the issues list, but I don't seem to see it.

Specifically in:

> 16: Issue rdfms-fragments
> Propose:
> o The WG resolves that the meaning of absolute
>   URI's with fragment ID's is a matter of web architecture and
>   beyond the scope of this WG and that this issue be closed.
> See:
> http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-fragments

I really can't agree with this. It's our problem that RDF uses this
non-standard piece of Web architecture, and in doing so has incurred all
sorts of problems. If we're going to be the Resource Description Framework,
we need we're actually describing resources. My ideal resolution would look

 o The WG resolves that the use of absolute URIs with fragment IDs is a
   to identify Web resources is relatively incompatible with current Web

 o We recommend that RDF users refrain from using '#' in their Resource
   identifiers and namespaces. RDF developers and tool creators may present
   a warning to the user when using resource identifiers with '#' in them.

 o We understand the need to identify portions of Web entities (data used to
   describe a resource, such as the data returned when making an HTTP GET
   request). We recommend that they identify such Resources using something
   along the lines of:

_:x rdf:type web:Fragment .
_:x web:resource <http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist> .
_:x web:fragID "w3cMediaType-1" .
_:x dc:date "2002-02-14T13:03Z" .

My goal is to:
 a) raise awareness about the problem while
 b) maintaining backwards-compatibility but
 c) lay the ground work for future WGs to fix this bug

> (d) choose namespace names that end in non-xml-name-characters
> such as / # ?

I think perhaps we should provide some warning about using # in namespace
names, dependent on the resolution of rdfms-fragments.
you're-not-getting-off-that-easy-'ly yrs,
[ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ]
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 14:20:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:10 UTC