Re: New Issue: Range of URI+fragment dereference function (new issue?)

Norman Walsh wrote:

> / Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net> was heard to say:
> | Norman Walsh wrote:
> |>
> |> ...
> |>
> |> I think we can finesse that point as follows:
> |>
> |>   For instance, if the representation is an HTML document, the
> |>   fragment identifier designates a hypertext anchor. If the
> |>                                                      ^^^^^^
> |>   representation is an XML document, the fragment identifier
> |>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> |>   designates an element. In the case of a graphics format, a URI
> |>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> |>   reference might designate a circle or spline.
> |
> | What if the representation is both an XML document and a graphics
> | format? i.e. SVG!
>
> This boils down to what the MIME type is, doesn't it? That's not a
> good answer, necessarily, but I did say I was trying to finesse the
> point. :-)

I'd like to keep the same distinction between resource and representation
that we do for URIs _without_ fragids, that is the MIME type is a function
of the _representation_ not the resource. Similarly a URI+ fragid might
identify _anything_ (call it a resource) whereas its representation might be
an XML element. This works just fine for SVG, for example, where an XML
element does actually represent a circle or square.

>
> If it's XML, yes, I think you have to point to the elements. But for
> "a graphics format" it would be reasonable to have a fragment
> identifier syntax that could designate circles and splines. That
> doesn't mean that *all* graphics formats would support such fragids,
> of course.
>
> |> ... In the case of RDF, a
> |>   a URI reference can designate anything, be it abstract (e.g., a
> |>   dream) or concrete (e.g., my car).
> |
> | Here we go again. Are we designating the element or the abstraction
> | represented by the element?
>
> My understanding...nope. Nope. Not on a Friday afternoon. I'm too
> tired :-)

The resource/representation mixup is easy to make... well, that's part of
this whole issue isn't it?

Jonathan

Received on Friday, 16 August 2002 22:06:13 UTC