- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 13:23:15 +0000
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
At 12:32 PM 12/30/02 -0500, Sandro Hawke wrote: > Designers should be careful, however, to distinguish between > places where a web address is used to directly identify a web > page and those where it is used in this indirect manner to > identify something described on the web page. (This is true > regardless of the use of fragment identifiers in web addresses; > they simply involve a portion of a web page.) > >I wonder how much of this statement the TAG agrees with..... I >wonder how the RDF community would feel about that last paragraph. I, for one, have no disagreement with this final paragraph. But there's something unsaid, which maybe doesn't need to be said in this context. In RDF, the referent of a URIref with fragment cannot be assumed to be a part of the referent of the same URI without fragment identifier. Any such relationship, if it exists, needs to be stated separately. Suppose we have: someuri:Unicorn and someuri:Unicorn#leftHindLeg used in some RDF description. Absent further information, we cannot assume that the second URIref denotes a part of the thing denoted by the first URIref. #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2003 14:50:47 UTC