- From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 08:08:02 -0500
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
At 02:11 PM 2/17/2004 +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote: >There is no guaruntee that the base >URI will denote and resolve to an RDF/XML instance, nor is there >any guaruntee that the fragment identifier will occur as the >value of an rdf:ID attribute. But this is entirely under the control of the issuer of the URI. I.e. if you cannot promise that GET http://mydomain.com/foo HTTP/1.1 returns something relevant to the resource whose identifier is http://mydomain.com/foo#bar then you should use some other service than mydomain.com. > Furthermore, even if the fragment >identifier occurs in an rdf:ID attribute, that doesn't mean >that the element bearing that attribute contains the complete >definition of that resource, even in that particular RDF/XML >instance, as there can be other elements with rdf:resource >and the full URI defining additional statements about the >resource. Certainly. This is true of every resource on the Semantic Web. "Anyone can say anything ...". This is a design principle. >In short, trying to rely on HTML-like fragment identifier >resolution to obtain authoritative definitions of terms >simply does not work in a sufficiently general and scalable >fashion for arbitrary RDF encoded knowledge. I disagree, though we might be quibbling about the application of the word "arbitrary". Certainly as you have shown there are implications below the level of RDF. But fragment identifiers can work and their use is one way to solve the ambiguity between documents and other things. -Ralph
Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2004 08:09:34 UTC