W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > October 2001

Re: Using fragment identifiers with URNs

From: Michael Mealling <michael@neonym.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 14:19:28 -0400
To: Stephen Cranefield <SCranefield@infoscience.otago.ac.nz>
Cc: "'uri@w3.org'" <uri@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20011010141928.G12804@bailey.dscga.com>
On Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 09:49:43AM +1200, Stephen Cranefield wrote:
> Thanks for your comments.  So it sounds as if it *is* OK to define a URN
> scheme that states specifically that retrieval is not meaningful.  In that
> case, the URI reference syntax should not be used with URIs from that
> scheme, as they would be meaningless.  Would you agree with that?

Incorrect due to an insufficient definition of 'retrieval'. The 
OID URN namespace says that there is no _authoritative_ retrieval
mechanism defined and indeed the document doubts if one could be
built. But that's simply one type of 'retrieval'. A local store of
DTDs using an OID URN as the key would be 'retrieval' and thus
a fragment would have meaning.

I.e. if you can come up with some set of state in which the fragment
has meaning by using the URI as a key in some database then the frament
has meaning. Fragments aren't part of the URI. They're part of the
thing the URI identifies. The idea of whether or not a fragment is
'valid' has everything to do with the thing identified and nothing
really at all to do with the URI itself...

-MM

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Mealling	|      Vote Libertarian!       | urn:pin:1
michael@neonym.net      |                              | http://www.neonym.net
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2001 14:23:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:29 GMT