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

Re: URIs vs. URIviews (issue background)

From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 23:28:55 -0600
To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B8973EB7.21208%me@aaronsw.com>
On 2002-02-18 4:38 PM, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> wrote:

> I would also observe that all the web browsers I use seem to be able
> to handle fragIds without any problems.

That's because they perform a retrieval action. I suppose RDF users can grab
files and talk about their hashes, but using them as generic resources
causes problems, even on the web. Perhaps some background would be good, I
suggest reading Roy Fielding's description of the REST model as applied to
URIs:

http://www1.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/evaluation.htm#sec_6_2

And REST Architectural elements:

http://www1.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/rest_arch_style.htm#sec_
5_2

And as Roy explains:

"""
At no time whatsoever is the resource transferred across the network when
doing a GET.  Only a REPRESENTATION of that resource is transferred, and the
fragment refers to a target within the representation and not within the
resource.  That is why fragments are media-type specific.
"""
 - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2001May/0019
   Are URI-references bound to resources?
   Roy Fielding, May 11 2001

I hope this makes sense.

-- 
      "Aaron Swartz"      |               Swhack Weblog
 <mailto:me@aaronsw.com>  |   <http://blogspace.com/swhack/weblog/>
<http://www.aaronsw.com/> |      something different every day
Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2002 00:28:51 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:45:16 EDT