(unknown charset) Re: Generic processing of Fragment IDs in RFC 3023bis

Hash: SHA1

Noah Mendelsohn writes:

> So, if all that's true, we have a situation where:
> * Code written to normative specification 3023bis would conclude that
> the above URI reference resolved to an element (I.e. because the DTD
> says that rdf:id is of type ID, which implies that it identifies an
> element).
> * Code written to normative reference [media type registration for
> application/rdf+xml would conclude that the same URI reference,
> applied to the same retrieved representation, resolved to a node in an
> RDF graph.
> That seems broken, hence the concern.  What am I misundertanding?

Why is it broken?  We have lots of XML languages which use XML to
represent more-or-less abstract data models (W3C XML Schema, for
example), in which there is in many cases a one-to-one correspondence
between an element in a document instance and an entity in a data
model.  Given that correspondence, the use of a fragment identifier to
pick out the element or the entity in different usage contexts seems
perfectly reasonable.

(BTW, I think the original sticking point was at a deeper level, based
on the understanding that per application/rdf+xml,
http://example.org/myrdf.xml#somename identified neither an element,
nor a node in an RDF graph, but some resource in the real world.)

- -- 
       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
 [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)


Received on Wednesday, 22 September 2010 09:12:21 UTC