W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2002

Re: URIs vs. URIviews (core issue)

From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 21:28:40 -0600
To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>, pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B895D108.20F7F%me@aaronsw.com>
On 2002-02-15 10:24 PM, "Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com> wrote:

> RDF uses (or allows use of) fragment identifiers in a way that is
> presumed to be independent of any particular data representation that a
> resource may have.

Yes, and moreover, the URI RFC says that this is specifically not the case:

"The semantics of a fragment identifier is a property of the data resulting
from a retrieval action, regardless of the type of URI used in the
reference.  Therefore, the format and interpretation of fragment identifiers
is dependent on the media type [RFC2046] of the retrieval result."
 - RFC 2396, section 4.1

I think DanC and I agree that this is the core issue of debate.

Dan claims that this doesn't restrict the meaning of URIs-with-fragments
(i.e. they can be treated like any other URI), I claim it restricts them as
to make them useless for our purposes.

[ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ]
Received on Sunday, 17 February 2002 22:28:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:55 UTC