- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 10:31:37 -0500
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- cc: www-tag@w3.org
> At 12:32 PM 12/30/02 -0500, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> > Designers should be careful, however, to distinguish between
> > places where a web address is used to directly identify a web
> > page and those where it is used in this indirect manner to
> > identify something described on the web page. (This is true
> > regardless of the use of fragment identifiers in web addresses;
> > they simply involve a portion of a web page.)
> >
> >I wonder how much of this statement the TAG agrees with..... I
> >wonder how the RDF community would feel about that last paragraph.
>
> I, for one, have no disagreement with this final paragraph. But there's
> something unsaid, which maybe doesn't need to be said in this context. In
> RDF, the referent of a URIref with fragment cannot be assumed to be a part
> of the referent of the same URI without fragment identifier. Any such
> relationship, if it exists, needs to be stated separately.
>
> Suppose we have:
> someuri:Unicorn
> and
> someuri:Unicorn#leftHindLeg
> used in some RDF description. Absent further information, we cannot assume
> that the second URIref denotes a part of the thing denoted by the first URIref.
I'd certainly agree that the notion of fragment-ness is in the domain
of web architecture and none of RDF's business. I like the idea of
the RDF model theory treating identifiers as completely opaque.
How do you explain to an web expert but newcomer-to-RDF what it means
to put the string "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type" in
the "Location" or "Address" field of their web browser?
-- sandro
Received on Wednesday, 15 January 2003 10:32:45 UTC