Issue for the tag?

Ian Jacobs sent a request for issues for the tag to 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
   - how does it relate to the concepts of content and
   - 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 

and in the RDF issue raised by Jonathon Borden:

This issue is related to other tag issues:


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