W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > July 2003

RE: resources and URIs

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:40:25 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F04A0765B@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Dan Connolly'" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: "'Tim Berners-Lee'" <timbl@w3.org>, www-archive@w3.org, Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, Eric Miller <em@w3.org>, "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>

Well... I wish I understood the case for it being so wrong... 'illegal' in
Tim's words.

To be frank... I don't understand it... and don't see the need for the
constraint... and I know I'm addressing a champion of the 'minimal
constraint' principle.

Last time you and I spoke about it you spoke in less black and white terms
and about an 'economic' rationale - it is more 'costly' done this way... but
I have failed to recreate that discussion... did you write it down anywhere?
Equally, if some argument has convinced you to take a more absolute stance
I'd be interested to know what it is/was.

FWIW you will also see use of http scheme URI (without fragments) in SOAP1.2
Part 2 recommendation [1] to name features and properties.

Stuart
--
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-soap12-part2-20030624/#soapfeatspec



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org] 
> Sent: 17 July 2003 15:28
> To: Williams, Stuart
> Cc: 'Tim Berners-Lee'; www-archive@w3.org; Dave Beckett; Eric 
> Miller; Eric Prud'hommeaux
> Subject: RE: resources and URIs
> 
> 
> On Thu, 2003-07-17 at 06:52, Williams, Stuart wrote:
> > Indeed... "RDF/XML Syntax Specification Revised" [1] gives number of 
> > examples that contain what I think Tim would regard as 'illegal' 
> > references.
> > 
> > Figure 1 contains the following URI References as property names:
> > 
> > 	http://www.example.org/terms/editor
> > 	http://www.example.org/terms/homePage
> > 	http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title
> > 	http://www.example.org/terms/fullName
> 
> Those are still there? I thought we asked to
> get those changed...
> 
> Ah... we only asked for them to be changed in the primer... 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0295.html

Sigh.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2003 10:51:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:31 GMT