- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 14:37:22 +0000
- To: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At Brian's request [3]: Proposed: That fragment identifiers, when used with RDF, are treated as a simple extension of the URI to which they apply, without having an interpretation that is in any way dependent on the context in which they appear. (It is recognized that this may not be entirely consistent with the way fragment identifiers are treated when used in conjunction with Web document retrieval, but that seems inevitable because RDF statements must, in general, stand independently of the MIME content-type of any representation of any resources that they describe.) This proposal reflects the fact that there is no special treatment of the fragment identifier part of URIrefs in the model theory for RDF -- that is, they are simply a syntactic part of a name that denotes some resource. In general, URIs without fragment identifiers used in RDF will be considered to correspond [[[in some way???]]] to the same URI used for normal Web document retrieval. [[[Hmmm, this gets into use/mention territory, and maybe needs to invoke Larry Masinters tdb ("that described by") URI scheme, which distinguishes between the document named by a URI, and some thing that is described by a document named by a URI. What *do* we mean when we use the URI of a web page that describes (say) a person. Maybe, like literals, it depends on the definition/interpretation of the property used?]]] [[[Musing some more... it now seems to me that there is nothing in RDF that requires the denotation of a URI to have any relationship with the Web document (if any) obtained by dereferencing that URI. Indeed, that would seem to be consistent with the model theory: there's nothing in the definition of an interpretation that requires there to be any relationship at all between the denotation of a URIref and the Web document accessed by that URIref. Any such relationship would appear to be purely coincidental.]]] [[[Finally, I'll note that this seems to have some parallels with a TAG discussion about the interpretation of namespace URIs [1,2].]]] #g -- [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Feb/0093.html [2] http://www.textuality.com/tag/Issue8.html [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0311.html ------------ Graham Klyne (GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2002 09:59:26 UTC