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

Re: URIs vs. URIviews (was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-02-15)

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>
Message-ID: <B895DB2C.20F87%me@aaronsw.com>
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 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:45:15 EDT