W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > November 2010

Re: ACTION-502: RDFa and fragid semantics

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 00:05:44 +0000
Message-ID: <4CF43FD8.5090003@webr3.org>
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
CC: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, www-tag@w3.org, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
> Well, not really.
> A general way of saying it is that the fragid is a document-global identifier in 
> whatever language.   You invent a new language, and 
> it get s new global identifiers
> So in a javascript module, for example,  I would expect
> foo.js#bar to be the  global variable bar in the file foo.

ahh insightful, I'd never seen it quite like that, so jumping a few hops 
one might conceivably specify a js require function and do something like:

   FastGraph = require('http://openjs.net/api/core.js#FastGraph);

Thus enabling a universal require for js and an open web scale set of 
classes that can be used anywhere - although perhaps I read too far in 
to it!

> It is really important to be able to ivent new languages,
> and so it hard to say how theyr global address space will work.
> In the case of HTML and RDFA, we have a mixture of languages
> so an localid  can either identify an HTML anchor or a RDF concept.
> I don't like the idea of things being both.

Afaict, at runtime the two localids can never conflict, one is used 
within the scope of the DOM and the other combined with a string to 
create an RDF URI Reference / IRI - so is the issue that at webscale, 
when you encounter something with a fragmentid and that derefs to an 
HTML+RDFa document, you don't know to what it refers (wondering if again 
that's covered by the context within which you're asking the question), 
so then is it to do with what statements one may make about the said uri 
-with-frag thus creating possible ambiguity there?



ps: I have a bad habit of just asking questions whereever, if these kind 
of comments are out of scope for the TAG list please do say!

> Tim
> On 2010-11 -29, at 18:29, Nathan wrote:
>> Jonathan Rees wrote:
>>> Re ACTION-502: Report back on discussions with Ben Adida regarding
>>> fragid semantics for RDFa
>>> According to RFC 3986, a "fragment's format and resolution is
>>> ... dependent on the media type of a potentially retrieved
>>> representation".
>> Would it be possible to have a generic web scale fragment processing rule which applies when a media-type does not specifically provide it's own processing rules, and indeed to which they can defer if the question is ever asked?
>> Best,
>> Nathan
Received on Tuesday, 30 November 2010 00:06:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:36 UTC