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

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

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 14 Feb 2002 15:08:57 -0600
To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1013720937.19337.21.camel@dirk>
On Thu, 2002-02-14 at 13:20, Aaron Swartz wrote:
> 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
> like:
>  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
>    architecture.


Er.. it's the very heart of web architecture:

  The principle that anything, absolutely anything, "on the Web"
  should identified distinctly by an otherwise opaque string
  of characters (A URI and possibly a fragment identifier) is
  core to the universality.

	-- http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Architecture

>  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.

Why? rdf:type has a # in it, after all. How can they avoid it?
Why would they?

>  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

I don't see any explanation of a problem here.

>  b) maintaining backwards-compatibility but
>  c) lay the ground work for future WGs to fix this bug

What bug?

> [...later...]
> > (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/> ]
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 16:09:41 UTC

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