Re: 2002-02-25#19, Fragment identifiers, words for the primer

where you say:
This contradicts some readings of the URI specification[RFC2396],
so caution is recommended when creating new RDF terms which
use fragment identifiers.

... I don't want to jump into this controversy.  But what is the use of
warning the public to be cautious without providing them the knowledge of
how to avoid the danger?  In other words:  Where will it hurt?   Without
presenting this knowledge, I fear, that the warning will do more harm than

So in
where the primer might read (quoting Grahm)  ...

Finally, note that in the special case of a document containing RDF/XML
statements (MIME type application/RDF+XML???), the syntax presumes a
convention for relating the document name to the resource names whose
definitions it contains.  Specifically, resources described using an
rdf:ID='...' attribute have an identifier that consists of the RDF document
URI plus a fragment identifier of the given rdf:ID attribute value.  But
observe that this is a purely syntactic convention, and does not of itself
presume any semantic relationship between the defining document and the
thing defined.

...maybe something like the following could be added:

      Where this semantic relationship needs to be
      stated you would need to include the triple:
      <foo:Id123> <:definedBy> <foo:documentUri>

Now I probably didn't get the syntax right, but perhaps you will get the

Oh .. and watch out, something might happen strange to you today !!

Seth Russell

Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2002 15:26:14 UTC