W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > December 2001

Re: Resolution for rdfms-fragments

From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 23:11:09 -0600
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B835AB8D.EC8A%me@aaronsw.com>
On 2001-12-06 9:59 PM, "Aaron Swartz" <me@aaronsw.com> wrote:

> If we're dealing with URIs and URI-refs, I consider them to be defined by
> the URI RFC. It defines URIs quite well, but throws URI refs to the dogs, it
> seems. I've been over the details with you several times on IRC, but I
> suppose I can repeat myself if it's so necessary.

As this issue (inevitably?) came up on IRC later, I thought I'd share the
following choice quote from RFC2396 (the URI RFC):

[[[
   A fragment identifier is only meaningful when a URI reference is
   intended for retrieval and the result of that retrieval is a document
   for which the identified fragment is consistently defined.
]]] - RFC 2396, available at http://rfc2396.x42.com/

I'm not sure how you can escape this. Most RDF tools I've seen clearly do
not retrieve fragments and thus any information they provide about them is
meaningless, since the fragment is meaningless in that context!

-- 
[ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ]
Received on Friday, 7 December 2001 00:11:13 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:43:01 EDT