- From: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
- Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 21:16:39 +0100
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
At 01:59 PM 5/8/00 -0400, Dan Brickley wrote: >It's not clear where we guarantee that. RDFS says that the model >corresponding to an RDF Schema shouldn't be changed, but is silent on >whether alternate syntactic representations might for eg become available >via content negotiation. This can of course be over-ridden by W3C >Publication Rules for specs. But I'm inlcined to agree: "it" shouldn't >change. Yes! Here you are saying something about an RDF model (an RDF schema), that it is invariant, and almost the opposite thing about *representations* of that model, that they may vary. And these are all, I think, statements that can be represented in RDF. >Quite. This is one of my concerns with RDF. However squeaky clean the >model, unless the Web has a clear conceptual model (here's how to >identify a Web >_Page_, a Web _Service_ a Web _Site_ etc) the richness of the formal model >is wasted. I am doubtful that we can have a clear conceptual model of everything that RDF can describe -- there is (by design, I understand) too much flexibility to create paradoxes, etc. Rather like human languages, I think. But to have a clear conceptual model of those things that matter to functioning of the web is, I hope, a different matter. > > rephrased carefully: the interpretation of a fragment identifier w.r.t. > > an entity body received in response to a GET request to a resource is > > relative to the MIME type of the entity body. > >Thanks for the extra precision: this is exactly the problem I'm concerned >with. The mime type may differ from day to day and client to client, which >is a problem from an RDF perspective as we treat URI References as if they >made sense when lifted out of such contexts. I agree. I think that, when dealing with namespaces for RDF (and other purposes), we should be very cautious about using fragment identifiers at all. For myself, I would tend to avoid fragment identifiers altogether in namespaces -- there are always hierarchical URIs that achieve much the same effect without the MIME content-type ambiguity. I.e., instead of: <foo xmlns:bar="http://xyzzy.com/plugh#"> ... use: <foo xmlns:bar="http://xyzzy.com/plugh/"> ... #g (Meaning g's view of the world for any MIME type that recognizes personal views ?-) ------------ Graham Klyne (GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Monday, 8 May 2000 18:39:51 UTC