- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:27:26 +0200
- To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- CC: 'Pat Hayes' <phayes@ihmc.us>, 'Eran Hammer-Lahav' <eran@hueniverse.com>, 'Dan Connolly' <connolly@w3.org>, apps-discuss@ietf.org, www-tag@w3.org, 'URI' <uri@w3.org>
On 26/6/09 18:54, Larry Masinter wrote: > # They aren't being treated differently. The normal syntax for naming > # something in RDF is a URI reference with a fragid attached. The use of > # a fragID cancels any assumptions that the URIreference denotes > something connected with the HTTP protocol. > > How does it do that? > > # This is how RDF manages to > # refer to galaxies, chemical elements, people, etc.. > > Sounds like this is only in the context of RDF. Yes and no. Here's the "Yes": the idea is that if content is served as application/rdf+xml then the meaning of #foo is delegated to the relevant spec (http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/mediatype-registration ? humm that's expired). The RDF mediatype doc says """Section 4.1 of the URI specification [6] notes that the semantics of a fragment identifier (part of a URI after a "#") is a property of the data resulting from a retrieval action, and that the format and interpretation of fragment identifiers is dependent on the media type of the retrieval result. However, in RDF, the thing identified by a URI with fragment identifier does not bear any particular relationship to the thing identified by the URI alone. This differs from some readings of the URI specification [6], so attention is recommended when creating new RDF terms which use fragment identifiers.""" Here the "No": A URI that points to an RDF document constructed in this fashion, is (according to those persuaded this story works) supposed to be a URI for whatever galaxy, chemical element, person etc. the RDF is structured to represent. In this way, http://danbri.org/foaf.rdf#danbri is a URI for me. Not just for RDF applications, but for any applications that care about the idea of URIs being URIs *for* things. The media-type registration that makes this so RDF-specific (RDF/XML-specific even) but the URI is supposed to be a URI for me, full stop, rather than "a URI for me, in RDF applications". At this point people normally bring up the possibility of clashes across content-negotiated representations served at the same URI. The usual answer offered by return is "if that hurts, don't do it". Dan
Received on Friday, 26 June 2009 17:28:10 UTC