- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 18:46:34 +0000
- To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
A last call for a first draft ;-) Aaron, this looks good and I see no reason not to publish it. I do have a comment below for consideration, maybe in a later round. At 11:31 AM 3/26/02 -0600, Aaron Swartz wrote: >Since I haven't gotten any comments the past few days, I was wondering if it >was alright to submit my most recent draft-draft of the media type >registration. It'll be published as an IETF Internet-Draft, essentailly an >IETF work-in-progress working draft. > >Brian, since I'd like to label it as coming from the WG, what process should >I go thru. Do we have to sign off on it at a telecon or can I just send it >in? Brian, in private exchanges I recommended that this be released fairly soon to give the IETF community time to review it and get used to the idea that it's coming. Releasing an Internet Draft is a very informal affair -- possibly even less so than releasing a W3C working draft -- so there's no sense of commitment implied. As long as nobody's going to be embarassed by the content I see no reason not to publish. When it has been published, I would be happy to ask Ned Freed (IETF area director and a leading author of the MIME specs) for advice on how to make sure the (IETF-tree) MIME registration can be approved as soon as possible after our documents are published as recommendations. >4. Fragment Identifiers > > Section 4.1 of the URI specification [5] notes that the semantics of > a fragment identifier (part of a URI after a "#") is a property of > the data resulting from a retrieval action, and that the format and > interpretation of fragment identifiers is dependent on the media type > of the retrieval result. > > However, in RDF, the thing identified by a URI with fragment > identifier does not bear any particular relationship to the thing > identified by the URI alone. This differs from some readings of the > URI specification [5], so attention is recommended when creating new > RDF terms which use fragment identifiers. > > The rdf:ID and rdf:about attributes can be used to define fragments > in an RDF document. When I reviewed this bit earlier, I didn't stand back far enough. What is needed to specify here, I think, is the meaning of a fragment identifier when applied to an RDF document URI, as opposed to one _used_ in an RDF document. Maybe something like this?: [[[ A fragment identifier applied to an RDF document refers to the RDF resource defined within the document using an rdf:ID attribute whose value is the fragment identifier, or equivalently identified using an rdf:about attribute with the document URI and fragment identifier. ]]] Hmmm... that's not quite right either: that's what _RDF_ means, but what should a general web rendering engine (not RDF) -- e.g. an ordinary web browser -- do with an identifier <http://example.org/somedoc.rdf#fragid> ? Would it be all the statements about the resource thus identified? A concatenation of the description elements thus identified, contained in an enclosing <rdf:RDF> element? #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2002 13:45:15 UTC