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

Re: fragment prose proposal

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 21:09:02 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040311210336.024a8728@127.0.0.1>
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, uri@w3.org

At 14:18 11/03/04 +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote:
>I also don't see how it contradicts my statement that fragids
>force one into the domain of document retrieval since no matter
>how you model it, you cannot get from a URIref with fragid to
>a representation of the secondary resource without *first*
>obtaining a representation of the primary resource.

Er, you may not be able to *get ... to* a representation (of the secondary 
resource), but you can still refer to, or make statements about, that which 
would be represented by such.  This is just what RDF does.  Retrieval is 
not mandatory.

In the context of the URI spec, I think that to insist on retrieval is to 
invite confusion, and maybe worse.

#g


------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Thursday, 11 March 2004 16:14:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:32 GMT