- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 09:20:55 +0000
- To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 22:11 17/02/2002 -0600, Aaron Swartz wrote: >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)". Hmmm, that seems like a question about the nature of resources and what names them. These are questions we have kicked to the tag. Have I understood you correctly? You are arguing, not that we should answer this question, but that we should discourage folks from using uri's with frag id's until this has been cleaned up? Brian
Received on Monday, 18 February 2002 04:22:33 UTC