- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:02:36 +0000
- To: www-tag@w3.org
Ian Jacobs sent a request for issues for the tag to chairs@w3.org I replied to that message, but this apparently insufficient to register an issue. The original message (with minor editing) said: RDFCore would like the TAG to clarify and define the foundations of the architecture of the web. The concept of a resource is fundamental to web architecture, yet it is very hard to pin down exactly what it means and how it relates to the concepts of URI, URI reference and XML namespace. The RDF community has, for some time, found this uncertainty has led to protracted discussions which rarely resolve. RDFCore is defining a formal model for the semantics of RDF, but is hampered in this effort by the lack of a formal model for these core web concepts. We suggest the TAG publish a formal W3C specification containing a description and a formal model: o clarifying the nature of resources - is a resource a 'conceptual mapping' as described in RFC 2396 - how does it relate to the concepts of content and representation - in what ways do web accesssible and non-web accessible resources differ o clarify how URI's relate to resources (e.g. can the same resource be named by more than one URI) o clarify what is named by a URI reference - how does this relate to the concept of resource - can a URI which names a non web-accessible resource take a fragment id? - how are parts of a resource, e.g. chapter 1 of a document, named, independently of mime type o clarify how the names in an XML namespace relate to URI's and URI references? - both RDF and XML schema name concepts using URI references, but use different Qname constructions to represent a URI reference - do we have two fundamental ways of naming things in the web, Qnames and URI's? o as an example, explain the operation of the http protocol within the context of this model. Further discussion related to these questions can be found in the thread beginning: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0188.html and in the RDF issue raised by Jonathon Borden: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JanMar/0014.html This issue is related to other tag issues: rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6 but we suggest the issue needs to be tackled in a broader scope. ]] Having just read the current list of TAG issues, I suggest that in considering this issue, the TAG may reflect on whether TAG issues themselves are identified by URI's and whether those URI's have fragment id's (its not clear from the web page). Brian McBride RDFCore co-chair
Received on Friday, 15 February 2002 04:04:22 UTC