W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > March 2004

Re: fragment prose proposal

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 11:11:50 +0200
Message-Id: <CCD1AFCF-71A9-11D8-B899-000A95EAFCEA@nokia.com>
Cc: uri@w3.org
To: "ext Graham Klyne" <gk@ninebynine.org>

Fair enough. I certainly didn't intend to put words in your mouth.

I personally see fragment identifiers as a post-retrieval
processing instruction to a particular class of application concerned
with presentation/manipulation of representations.

To that end, I find it hard to see any utility in fragment identifiers
to the semantic web.

If one has a "first class" resource, then one should use a URI without
any fragment identifier -- so that it is possible to both describe
that resource using RDF statements as well as access representations
of that resource *directly* using HTTP.

I think that the generalization of what essentially was a content
access mechanism into an mechanism for denoting "secondary resources"
is a failed experiment that will, as the web and SW evolves, offer
less and less utility.



On Mar 08, 2004, at 15:50, ext Graham Klyne wrote:

> At 13:55 08/03/04 +0100, Patrick Stickler wrote:
>> On Feb 27, 2004, at 20:23, ext Graham Klyne wrote:
>>> ... I'm not sure that it is at all meaningful to employ a fragment 
>>> identifier at all.
>> I've come to the same conclusion.
> I'm concerned that I have been quoted out-of-context.  My original 
> message containing that quote is at:
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2004Feb/0148.html
> Specifically, the quoted phrase was prefixed with:
>   "In such an environment, "
> (referring to an environment in which "a given URI has no retrievable 
> representation")
> On reflection, I'd change the "at all" to "especially", and note that 
> the comment should be interpreted in light of:
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20031209/#pr-describe-resource
> #g
> ------------
> Graham Klyne
> For email:
> http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact


Patrick Stickler
Nokia, Finland
Received on Tuesday, 9 March 2004 04:11:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:07 UTC