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

RE: Resources and URIs

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 14:44:39 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F04A074E0@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com'" <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, danbri@w3.org, cowan@mercury.ccil.org
Cc: phayes@ai.uwf.edu, gk@ninebynine.org, uri@w3.org

Hi Patrick,

One smallish niggle. The term URIRef from 2396 is inclusive of references
that do not happen to have fragment identfiers.

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

I rather think you do... but I suspect that you don't use fragment
identifiers in those ontologies.

I've come to find the term URI-Reference apt for references made, say in
hypertext documents or on the side of busses, using URI syntax rather than
as a term for distinguishing URI with fragment ids from those without -
which the term doesn't infact do in any case.

Regards

Stuart
--

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com [mailto:Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com]
> Sent: 29 April 2003 13:31
> To: danbri@w3.org; cowan@mercury.ccil.org
> Cc: phayes@ai.uwf.edu; gk@ninebynine.org; uri@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Resources and URIs
> 
> 
> > -----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.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Patrick
Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2003 09:45:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:31 GMT