Re: Semantic content negotiation (was Re: expectations of vocabulary)

My point was nothing more than:

(a) most URIs are not dereferenceable, because common rules for  
dereferencing them do not exist, or they are designed not to be;
(b) most HTTP URIs do not dereference to a useful RDF representation;
(c) using fragment identifiers gives you a slightly better chance of  
dereferencing to a useful representation, because of HTTP's mechanics.

Reliance on the dereferenceability of a term, even an HTTP URI, is  
foolhardy.

-R

> We are talking about IF a resource is dereferencable but not HOW a  
> resource
> can be dereferenced.  Whehter using fragment identifier is  
> irrelevant, don't
> you think?  Again, let's not steer away the direction.  Otherwise,  
> we will
> have endless debate on anything.