- From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 22:11:56 -0600
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 2002-02-15 4:20 AM, "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote: >> Sure, I came up with a proposal for this once, but I recall it being >> dismissed as crazily strange. I'd have no problem with that. >> >> http://example.org/foo#bar >> -> >> http://example.org/foo?frag=bar >> or maybe >> http://www.w3.org/2002/02-frag/?uri=http://example.org/foo&frag=bar > Does that mean you agree that http://example.org/foo#bar does name a resource? Of course! I don't think anyone disagrees with that. The issue at hand is whether we can define it as naming an abstract resource. See my message "URIs vs. URIviews (core issue)". >> Hmm, can you provide a pointer to your email? I didn't see it on the issue >> list or in the www-tag archives. > Looks like a communications cockup. I sent it in reply to a message > soliciting input to the tag. I would have thought that sufficient, but > apparently not, so I've just resent it to the tag list. I'm offline - > can't do a pointer. It's here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Feb/0084 -- [ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ]
Received on Sunday, 17 February 2002 23:11:56 UTC