- From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 00:15:37 -0700
- To: ietf-xml-mime@imc.org, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
"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[6], so attention is recommended when creating new RDF terms which use fragment identifiers." I confess to have never liked this attempt to use fragment identifiers in RDF to 'descend into meaning' rather than to identify a structural fragment; I think it's inconsistent, and leaves you no way to talk about structural fragments. The notion that the resource identified by "http://some.host/some.path#" and "http://some.host/some.path" are completely unrelated seems pathological. So not sure 'attention is recommended' captures the necessary caution. I think part of the problem is that the draft only addresses URI references with fragment identifiers when those URI references are used _as RDF terms_. But what about other uses? If I have a web page with <a href="http://some.host/some.path#concept">link to a concept</a> what might a legitimate response be to clicking on that as a link? I can't tell from this document or the documents it references.
Received on Saturday, 23 August 2003 10:06:47 UTC