- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 15:19:28 -0500
- To: "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>
- CC: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: > The RDF primer model example [1] makes an assertion that has > [[ > a subject http://www.example.org/index.html > a predicate http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/creator > and an object http://www.example.org/staffid/85740 > ]] > I request changing > http://www.example.org/staffid/85740 > to > http://www.example.org/staffid#8570 > per the concepts document [2]. Eric-- Thanks for the comment. I'm reluctant to make this change, for several reasons (which I'll describe below). I'm also a bit unclear as to the background behind the request, so I need a little more information from you about this. I'm reluctant to make the change because, even if we restrict the change to the staffid/85740 usage, this doesn't just appear in one example; it's used throughout the text of Section 2 (it also appears in Section 4), so the changes required would be rather extensive. (If the idea behind this is that *all* usages of plain URIs should be replaced by usages of URI#fragment, the changes become even more extensive, involving much of the Primer). Such changes would also, in my opinion, be somewhat misleading. RDF URIrefs can contain fragments, but they don't need to, and the Primer deliberately has a mixture of usages of both kinds of URIrefs for that reason (a number of the examples in Section 3 use URIrefs that include fragments, as do examples in Section 5). The Dublin Core property URIrefs, for example, don't use fragments, and we can't really change that. I'm not sure what to make of your reference to the Concepts document. That section of the Concepts document describes a way of interpreting RDF URIrefs that *do* include fragments, but I don't see it as mandating that they *have* to contain fragments (you might also look at what the Primer Appendix A says about fragments). I'm also not sure what to make of your comment below. What ambiguity of URIs (without fragments) are you referring to? It seems to me that a URI is unambiguous (at least as an opaque name, the way RDF uses it). Also, if a URI without a fragment is ambiguous, how can it become less ambiguous by adding a fragment to it? --Frank > > While the exact semantics of URI#fragment are still subject to debate, I > believe they are considered less likely to be ambigous than URI alone. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/#rdfmodel > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-fragID > -- Frank Manola The MITRE Corporation 202 Burlington Road, MS A345 Bedford, MA 01730-1420 mailto:fmanola@mitre.org voice: 781-271-8147 FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Tuesday, 18 February 2003 14:59:56 UTC