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

Re: fragment prose proposal

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 12:46:19 +0200
Message-Id: <7F175801-7412-11D8-BD2B-000A95EAFCEA@nokia.com>
Cc: uri@w3.org
To: "ext Graham Klyne" <GK@ninebynine.org>


On Mar 11, 2004, at 23:09, ext Graham Klyne wrote:

>
> 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.

But even with RDF you must *insist* on at least a potential or 
imaginary retrieval of some
RDF/XML representation in order to obtain the interpretation of the 
fragid.

Yes, RDF allows you to make statements with URIrefs with fragids, but 
ultimately,
the interpretation of those URIrefs depends on "some kind of" 
representation being
presumed or hoped to exist.

Patrick

>
> #g
>
>
> ------------
> Graham Klyne
> For email:
> http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
>
>

--

Patrick Stickler
Nokia, Finland
patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Friday, 12 March 2004 05:46:33 GMT

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