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: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 16:38:26 -0600
Message-Id: <p05101403b8972e90f19f@[65.212.118.219]>
To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>On 2002-02-18 3:20 AM, "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>
>>>  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.
>
>No, the issue is what URI-references name. I think it's pretty unambiguously
>clear

I very much doubt it.  Everything Ive read about what URI-references 
name or mean has been almost impenetrably murky and so ambiguous as 
to be meaningless, if taken literally.

>  and I've seen Roy Fielding, Al Gilman, and many others say the same
>thing. I guess we could take it to the TAG if we wanted to be absolutely
>sure, but I'm not sure how they can say anything different than what the
>spec says.

RFC2396 seems to be pretty clear that frags, while not technically 
part of the URI, are expected to be used with URIs (why else exclude 
'#' from the URI BNF ?.)  I really do not understand what the problem 
is here, from reading RFC2396. It says quite clearly that urirefs CAN 
contain fragIds.
I would also observe that all the web browsers I use seem to be able 
to handle fragIds without any problems.

>
>>  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?
>
>I think the question is answered (feel free to look at the text in RFC2396
>and decide for yourself).

That text certainly does not say that such use is discouraged or 
deprecated. To me it gives a very strong impression in the other 
direction, eg section 4.3
"   A URI reference is typically parsed according to the four main
    components and fragment identifier in order to determine what
    components are present and whether the reference is relative or
    absolute. "
which seems to assume that parsing a URI reference should take into 
account any fragIds, rather than ignore them.

>  But yes, I think we should discourage their use as
>a way to stop things from getting worse.

I still fail to follow exactly in what way the situation is bad here.

Pat

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Monday, 18 February 2002 17:38:19 EST

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