W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > March 2010

URI Fragments

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:00:59 +0000
Message-ID: <4B9A491B.1050602@webr3.org>
To: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Hi Again :)

Last question(s) related to fragments.. if I have:

Those are two unique URIs and thus two unique resources (?)

And the semantics of a fragment means that
http://example.org/something#a is a secondary resource, where
http://example.org/something is the primary resource (?)

Then if I delete a Primary resource, the secondary resources must also
be deleted, true / false (?).

Here are some examples, which may seem like over kill but some are
interesting and generally I *feel* rules like this should be either
always true, or always false, never varying.

if I remove a database table, then all it's rows also no longer exist.
if I remove London then the Tower of London also no longer exists.
if somebody removes me, then my arms also no longer exist.
if I remove test.html then test.html#whatever no longer exists.
if I remove test.rdf then test.rdf#this no longer exists
if I remove http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card then
http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card#i no longer exists.

if I remove a row, the table still exists
if I remove the Tower of London, London still exists
if you remove my arms, I still exists and I'll find another way to type.
if I remove test.html#whatever test.html still exists
if I remove test.rdf#this, test.rdf still exists
if I remove http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card#i then
http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card still exists.

If the above is true (secondary resource must also be deleted on removal
of primary resource), then I should never use a fragment Identifier to
refer to a non-virtual object (i.e. "me" a Person) - because I can't be
deleted by simply removing a resource. (?)


Received on Friday, 12 March 2010 14:01:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:03 UTC