Re: Historical - Re: Proposed IETF/W3C task force: "Resource meaning" Review of new HTTPbis text for 303 See Other

Great summary Tim.

On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 3:14 AM, Tim Berners-Lee<> wrote:
> Two snags occurred, as the years passed.  One was that a bunch of RDF users
> got the fact that it was good to use HTTP URIs, but didn't get the fact that
> you should put the foo.rdf online so that people can look up what #color
> means in it.  And as they didn't do that, they didn't actually bother with
> the "#" at all.  The second fly in the ointment was that some people wanting
> to use RDF for large systems found that they didn't want to use the "#".
> This was sometimes because the number of things defined in the same file was
> too low (like 1) or too large (like a million) and it was difficult to
> divide up the information into middle-sized chunks. Or they just didn't like
> the "#" because it looks weird. But for one reason or another people
> demanded the right to be able to use to denote
> Pat rather than a web page about Pat.
> This potentially led to huge failures in the whole RDF world, with systems
> already built which just used   "" to identify
> the document whether you like it or not.
> I among others pushed back against using non-hash URIs for arbitrary things
> his but eventually gave in.

Are we in a position to unify the  HTML and RDF fragment semantics so
we can safely content negotiate the two formats? Especially now we
have wider use of RDFa?

you suggested it was OK to negotiate these formats so long as the same
fragment was not not used as an anchor and a thing.

That's quite hard to achieve consistently in practice. As an example
see where is both an anchor and an rdfs:Class


Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 00:22:20 UTC