W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > April 2003

RE: Resources and URIs

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 15:30:50 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B01B90D52@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <danbri@w3.org>, <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Cc: <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, <gk@ninebynine.org>, <uri@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Dan Brickley [mailto:danbri@w3.org]
> Sent: 29 April, 2003 15:19
> To: John Cowan
> Cc: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere); phayes@ai.uwf.edu;
> gk@ninebynine.org; uri@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Resources and URIs
> * John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> [2003-04-29 08:03-0400]
> > 
> > Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com scripsit:
> > 
> > > If Tim says that http://www.w3.org/Consortium/ denotes the W3C,
> > > then that's (probably) what it denotes.
> > 
> > Fair enough.
> I very much doubt that Tim has said that (recently at least). It 
> might have been used hypothetically in an argument.

Hence my "(probably)". After all, hearsay is hearsay...

> My understanding of his view is that http: URIs can only name 
> documents, unless they're URIrefs containing # in which case they
> can name things of any kind.

Well, I'm also familiar with Tim's recent arguments along these
lines, though I think he is in this case in a pretty small minority.

If URIs can denote anything, then one need not use a URIref to 
denote something that is not a "web document".

I personally find the use of URIrefs to denote anything other than
logical and/or physical components of the resource denoted by the
base URI to be poor practice and contrary to the original purpose
of fragment identifiers.

So I would be quite happy to have the abovementioned URI denote
the W3C with no qualms about it not being a URIref.

In fact, in our ontologies at Nokia, we use no URIrefs.



Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2003 08:30:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:05 UTC