Date: April, 1997
Status: personal view, but believed to be my best expression of the underlying architecture for W3C development. Editing status: Good enough fo discussion.
Up to Design Issues
The URI by itself is a powerful thing, but there is a more powerful concept which is the URI reference.
The URI reference is a thing you build by taking a URI for an information object, adding a "#" sign and then a Fragement identifier. (The last term is historical, so try not to thinl of it necessarily identifying a fragment).
The fragment identifier is a string after URI, after the hash, which identifies something specific as a function of the document. For a user interface Web document such as HTML poage, it typically identifies a part or view. For example in the object
the string "frag" is the fragment identifier. It is badly named, as it can identify anything.
(Depending on where you look, the URI is considered to include the fragment identifier, or to have the fragment identifier appended to it. This is important for the BNF, but in practice you will find people using the terms URI and URL loosely to things which do or do not include a possible fragment identifier. Formally, the URI does include the fragment ID)
In practice, you can divide the processing which occurs when following a link using HTTP into three steps:
The last part typically involves finding some software class which can handle the given MIME type, and passing it the data stream. At the same time, the fragment identifier is passed as a parameter to the created object.
For HTML, the fragment ID is an SGML ID of an element within the HTML object. For XML, if it is just a word, then it is the XML ID of an element in the document.
The significance of the fragment identifier is a function of the MIME type of the object
This means that the fragment id is opaque for the rest of the client code. The HTTP engine cannot make any assumptions about it. The server is not even given it.
It also means that for any new data type one can be creative about using the fragment ID in a relevant way. For example, for a 3D object the fragment ID could give a viewport. For a music object, the Fragment ID could give a section in time, or a set of parts, or it could include a suggested tempo. For future versions of HTML, the fragment ID could be made more powerful to include a range or "ladder" reference to a part or parts of the SGML element tree by position. A very useful fragment ID for plain text would allow ranges to be quoted by line and character number
These things are all decisions made when the MIME type is defined. Therefore,
The fragment ID spec for a new MIME type should be part of the MIME type registration process.
Different MIME types then can have different fragment ID specifications. When HTTP for example negotiates between different content types, it is clearly useful for those types to have a consistent (hopefully identical) fragment ID syntax and semantics.
The semantic web has information about anything. The fragment identifier on an RDF (or N3) document identifies not a part of the document, but whatever thing, abstract or concrete, animate or innanimate, the document describes as having that identifier.
It is important, on the Semantic Web, to be clear about what
is identified. An
http: URI (without fragment
identifier) necessarily identifies a generic document. This is because the HTTP
server response about a URI can deleiver a rendition of (or
location of, or apologies for) a document which is identified
by the URI requested. A client which understands the http:
protocol can immediately conclude that the fragementid-less
URI is a generic document. This is true even if the publisher
(owner of the DNS name) has decided not to run a server. Even
if it just records the fact that the document is not
available online, still a client knows it refers to a
document. This means that identifiers for arbitrary RDF
concepts should have fragment identifiers. This, in turn,
means that RDF namespaces should end with "#".
When a document language (MIME type) has some form of intra-document naming for objects then it is intuitive is these names can be directly used as fragment identifiers. This is true for XML, that the XML ID which is used to identify elements can be directly used as a fragment identifier.
If content negotiation occurs across types which do NOT share a fragment ID specification, then rigidly there has been an error. In practice, HTML was the only type (in 1997) which allowed fragment IDs anyway, and other types ignore it. Also, as falling back from a pointer to a specific view to a pointer to the whole document has been considered effective fallback procedure, so no harm was done. Now (2001) it becomes more of a problem. there have been proposasl to add the requested fragment idntifier to the HTTP request to fix this.)
In the future, metadata returned or warnings returned should indicate to the client that this could be a problem. Also, in new access protocols, the fragment ID requested could be shipped to the server as a hint, which would allow the server and client to negotiate and if successful arrange for the fragment ID to be converted to a suitable equivalent value for an alternative MIME type.
Clearly when a fragment ID is generated and associated with a URI which is generic in any way (language, version, etc as well as content-type), then there is a possible failure of the fragment-id refers to something which is not defined in any specific instance. It would be appropriate for a client, when generating a link (or bookmark, etc) to provide the user with a choice of
As both these options are meaningful and useful, they will have to surface at the user interface level.
Back to URIs --- Next: Links and the law
Up to Design Issues
$Id: Fragment.html,v 1.6 1998/03/04 17:24:58 timbl Exp $