A last call for a first draft ;-)
Aaron, this looks good and I see no reason not to publish it. I do have a
comment below for consideration, maybe in a later round.
At 11:31 AM 3/26/02 -0600, Aaron Swartz wrote:
>Since I haven't gotten any comments the past few days, I was wondering if it
>was alright to submit my most recent draft-draft of the media type
>registration. It'll be published as an IETF Internet-Draft, essentailly an
>IETF work-in-progress working draft.
>
>Brian, since I'd like to label it as coming from the WG, what process should
>I go thru. Do we have to sign off on it at a telecon or can I just send it
>in?
Brian, in private exchanges I recommended that this be released fairly soon
to give the IETF community time to review it and get used to the idea that
it's coming. Releasing an Internet Draft is a very informal affair --
possibly even less so than releasing a W3C working draft -- so there's no
sense of commitment implied. As long as nobody's going to be embarassed by
the content I see no reason not to publish.
When it has been published, I would be happy to ask Ned Freed (IETF area
director and a leading author of the MIME specs) for advice on how to make
sure the (IETF-tree) MIME registration can be approved as soon as possible
after our documents are published as recommendations.
>4. Fragment Identifiers
>
> Section 4.1 of the URI specification [5] 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 [5], so attention is recommended when creating new
> RDF terms which use fragment identifiers.
>
> The rdf:ID and rdf:about attributes can be used to define fragments
> in an RDF document.
When I reviewed this bit earlier, I didn't stand back far enough.
What is needed to specify here, I think, is the meaning of a fragment
identifier when applied to an RDF document URI, as opposed to one _used_ in
an RDF document. Maybe something like this?:
[[[
A fragment identifier applied to an RDF document refers to the RDF resource
defined within the document using an rdf:ID attribute whose value is the
fragment identifier, or equivalently identified using an rdf:about
attribute with the document URI and fragment identifier.
]]]
Hmmm... that's not quite right either: that's what _RDF_ means, but what
should a general web rendering engine (not RDF) -- e.g. an ordinary web
browser -- do with an identifier <http://example.org/somedoc.rdf#fragid>
? Would it be all the statements about the resource thus identified? A
concatenation of the description elements thus identified, contained in an
enclosing <rdf:RDF> element?
#g
-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>