W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > July to September 2003

Re: pfps-15 say anything quote

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 17:28:40 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20030807.172840.86419904.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: fmanola@mitre.org
Cc: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com, www-rdf-comments@w3.org

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Subject: Re: pfps-15 say anything quote
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 15:45:25 -0400

[I'm not particularly worried about the caveat stuff.]

> > I wish that the Primer didn't use URI references without fragment IDs so
> > much.  I think that it would also be a good idea to use the redirected
> > versions of the DC elements, as they are URI references with fragment
> > identifiers.
> It seems to me there'a reasonable distribution of both kinds of URIrefs, 
> and since both kinds are legal, and the WG hasn't taken an offical 
> position (as far as I know) on this issue, I thought I'd better be 
> "unbiased" in the Primer (Syntax is similarly "unbiased").

This use of URI references without fragment IDs can lead to a
confusion between documents and resources.  It is not a big issue for me,
but it may be for others.  (Who, apparently, have not complained.)

> I'm not sure what you mean about "the redirected versions of the DC 
> elements".  As far as I know, the official URI assigned to the DC terms 
> continues to not use fragment IDs, e.g., 
> http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title.  Can you clarify?

When I type http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title in to my browser, the
URI that comes back is http://dublincore.org/2003/03/24/dces#title, which I
think is much in keeping with the RDF philosophy on such URIs.

> --Frank

Received on Thursday, 7 August 2003 17:28:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:21 UTC