- From: Chimezie Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:05:08 -0400
- To: "Richard Cyganiak" <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On 9/28/07, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote:
> > Well, I'm not sure it follows that it 'clearly' identifies a section
> > in the HTML case - unless you are using the web-arch notion of
> > 'identifies' and not denotation but even so...
>
> *Of course* I'm using the web-arch notion of "identifies".
Okay then, you are comparing apples to oranges. Saying RDF
'identifies' things is an abuse of notation as far as I'm concerned.
RDF denotes 'things' (the mechanics for this are very well-defined -
/TR/rdf-mt ), web-arch "identifies". These are not equivalent
mechanisms, or at least their definitions do not correspond. If *we*
are serious about consistency between 'classic' web architecture and
the semantic web, we need to fix this disconnect *before* suggesting
best practices prematurely.
> No, you are wrong.
> RFC 3986 says that the "nature" of <doc#term> is
> determined by the media type of <doc>, governed by the RFC that has
> registered that media type. The registration for HTML says that
> fragments identify parts of the HTML document;
Yes, I gathered this from Dan's follow-up response about the HTML RFC
being the source of the 'problem'. Still, the ambiguity you are
speaking about is between two completely orthogonal mechanisms for
reference ("identification" versus denotation).
Frankly (and this has been my perpetual theme), if there is serious
concern about ambiguity, then a language well-equipped to handle
ambiguity should be used. A vacuous notion of "identification" is
simply not sufficient.
> the registration for
> RDF says that fragments can identify things outside of the document.
> Thus the ambiguity.
See above.
-- Chimezie
Received on Friday, 28 September 2007 21:05:22 UTC