- From: Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 12:42:25 +0100
- To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- CC: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
It's arguable that any syntax that claims to represent RDF makes implicit reference to http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-fragID. #g -- Jonathan Rees wrote: > For what it's worth - and backing up your point that RDF seems to be > doing its own thing with fragids independent of what 3986 says - of > the many RDF serialization format registrations either completed or in > progress, the only one that says anything about fragids is > application/rdf+xml (RFC 3870). > > Turtle and N3 are registered: > http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/text/turtle > http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/text/n3 > but say nothing about fragids. > > OWL Manchester, Functional, and XML are submitted and in progress, and > say nothing. And of course, as I said, text/html and application/xml > also say nothing. > > This state of affairs reinforces the RDFa view that updating the > registrations is either unnecessary or unimportant. If Turtle doesn't > do it, why should RDFa do it? (ACTION-509) Maybe this is right, I > don't know. > > If we end up deciding this is important, we might consider updating > the W3C guide on registering media types > http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype > to urge consideration of fragids, since this document is very likely > what the authors of all the above registrations consulted. That > doesn't solve the problem in general, but it would be a start. > > (thanks for help from Eric P, Ivan H, and Sandro H) > > Jonathan >
Received on Monday, 9 May 2011 13:08:35 UTC