Comments on: Fragmentation

By: Mia Tyler

Mia Tyler — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 15:44:25 +0000

Hey!…Man i love reading your blog, interesting posts ! it was a great Sunday .

By: Internet Alchemy » It’s OK to use URIs with Fragments in RDF

Internet Alchemy » It’s OK to use URIs with Fragments in RDF — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:05:46 +0000

[...] been doing some more digging on my fragmentation and shadow web themes and came across something I hadn’t really seen before or, if I have, [...]

By: iand

iand — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:39:06 +0000

By the way, I’m not suggesting that fragments should be deprecated totally. I just think that they’re unsuitable for use as abstract concept identifiers in RDF since their meaning changes depending on the representation. If you really do mean to link to a subsection of an HTML page or some such then they work really well.

By: iand

iand — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:00:33 +0000

I wonder what URI we ought to use to refer to issue 81 on the RFC2616bis work?

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i81 is the URI of the HTML fragment describing it. According to the webarch I can’t use that URI to also denote the issue itself.

By: Mark Nottingham

Mark Nottingham — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 18:09:36 +0000

I hadn’t heard people suggest that we deprecate fragment identifiers before, but it certainly is an option. Interestingly, people are also talking about deprecating — or at least cautioning against the use of — format conneg; see http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i81

(yes, that has a fragid in it

By: Henry Story

Henry Story — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:53:37 +0000

Just read the referred to article. I was hoping never to have to read about this issue again, but this is well written – even if the english could do with a little improovement (good english is important when difficult concepts such as this are being treated)

The distinctions are really subtle.

I suppose one could test it with some good example vocabularies that would allow one to speak of things, their representations and the relation between them, in such a way that all of this would work in a linked data way.

By: Henry Story

Henry Story — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 23:48:23 +0000

I wonder if there is not another solution to the # problem. Perhaps we can argue that in html the #url does not refer to a section of html, but rather that when people are working with html, they are working syntactically, and so things just work differently. Consider the sentence

“Henry was born in England”

We can say “Henry” is the first word of the sentence, and so we can identify positions in the sentence with words. But “Henry” really does identify me the physical 10 dimensional process writing this email.

Now I would agree with you that information resources are perhaps not quite as seriously needed as one may think. But I don’t think this is such a big problem. Neither are hash urls are big problem.

Hash urls do have a nice advantage in that it is easy to figure out if you already have the representation for a # url. Other urls that redirect to their definitions require a GET to discover this.

By: Internet Alchemy » Reformulating the Web Architecture

Internet Alchemy » Reformulating the Web Architecture — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 16:53:51 +0000

[...] Fragmentation [...]

By: Internet Alchemy » What are Information Resources Good For?

Internet Alchemy » What are Information Resources Good For? — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:19:11 +0000

[...] is probably obvious from my recent posts (e.g. Fragmentation and Is the Semantic Web Destined to be a Shadow?), I’m thinking about the TAG’s [...]

By: Internet Alchemy » Is the Semantic Web Destined to be a Shadow?

Internet Alchemy » Is the Semantic Web Destined to be a Shadow? — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 02:16:03 +0000

[...] decision on the types of resources that can be addressed with HTTP. As I pointed out in my recent Fragmentation post, there is strong pressure towards using URIs with fragment IDs to represent [...]