Re: SemWeb use case for issue httpRange-14

> On Tue, 2002-12-31 at 12:35, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> > Let's call this odd
> > hybrid approach #89.
> 
> What's odd about it? It's clearly the way the Web
> works, and consistent with all the specs (RDF, HTTP,
> HTML, not sure about XLink/XPointer) as written, no?

To avoid repeating my previous mistake [1], let me quote some more of
my earlier message:

   My personal suggestion [6] to the RDF community (which I encourage
   the TAG to reiterate) uses a hybrid which largely mirrors current
   practice.  The idea is to say that <...> means 33<...> (the web
   page) if there is no "#" in the URI and 102<...> when there is a
   "#".  (As above, I don't like the "intent" part of 102; I prefer an
   external formulation like primarySubject, but it can be used like
   102.)  Beyond this, people can use primarySubject and webAddress
   explicitely for the less common other cases.  Let's call this odd
   hybrid approach #89.

As in my just-posted message to Roy and the TAG [2], saying a mental
model is consistent with previous observations does not mean it is
correct or will be consistent with future observations.  That said, I
don't think it is consistent with past observations.

To rephrase #89: a URI is directly linked to either the container
or the subject, depending on whether the URI contains a "#"
character.    If it contains a "#" it's directly linked to subject,
and you can't talk about the container or the content.  

I don't think that matches XLink/XPointer or general HTML user
experience with fragment identifiers.  In both these situations, the
"container" view still holds quite nicely (although in HTML the end of
the container is not clearly specified).  People certainly talk about
the "text at foo#bar", which is a sure sign they are not always
jumping straight to the subject.

That said, as long as we provide a way in RDF to quote a URI string
and a predicate to link that string to the container, it's okay to
make jumping straight-to-the-subject be the default.

    -- sandro

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2003Jan/0003
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jan/0001
[6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2002Dec/0125

Received on Thursday, 2 January 2003 06:26:57 UTC