Re: Proposed issue: What does using an URI require of me and my software?

On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 11:22, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 10:05, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> > I agree entirely with Bijan here.
> 
> 
> To be more explicit.
> 
> 1/ I believe that this group should try to identify the issues that need to
>    be resolved.  

I'm ambivalent about that. Time spent building an issues list
competes with time spent evaluating solutions.

> 2/ I believe that there are only a small number of these issues.

If there are only a few, then they won't cost much in overhead.
That would be good.

[...]

> 6/ I believe that one of the issues that needs to be resolved is what
>    information is implicit in the use of a URI reference with optional
>    fragment identifier, particularly in the case where removing the
>    fragment identifier results in the URI that can be used to retrieve an
>    RDF (or OWL) document.

Hmm... I don't see how that's any smaller than the
whole rdfURIMeaning-39 issue.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/