- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 07:01:20 -0500
- To: "Aaron Swartz" <me@aaronsw.com>, "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
> >I grab http://www.example.org/, it's an RDF document that says (in part): > > > ><rdf:Description rdf:about="#Dog"> > > <dc:description>a dog, an animal with four legs</dc:description> > ></rdf:Description> > > > >According to the URI spec (via the links I cited), the #Dog is an XML element. I find it helpful to think of it this way: The snippet of XML (note quotes) "<rdf:Description rdf:about="#Dog"> <dc:description>a dog, an animal with four legs</dc:description> </rdf:Description>" is in some sense like the _representation_ of the resource identified by http://www.example.org/#Dog This representation is in RDF/XML, and is interpreted by an "RDF processor" as describing the abstract resource "Dog". I think of it that way because I find it a useful analogy between an URI being dereferenced and returning a character based or binary _representation_ of the RFC 2396 resource. A fragment identifier is used by the client to find some fragment of this representation, and the process is determined by the media type. Once the client has obtained the representation fragment, this representation fragment can be thought of as a representation of the RDF resource identified by the full URI reference. If enough other people find this view useful, perhaps the arch doc could use this as a way to tie together REST and URI references. Jonathan
Received on Friday, 1 November 2002 07:20:36 UTC