W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > June 2001

Re: What to do about namespace derived URI refs... (long)

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 22:47:10 +0100
Message-ID: <05e401c0eed2$5b5df140$60dd93c3@z5n9x1>
To: "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net>, <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Cc: <Ora.Lassila@nokia.com>
> [...] you have stepped over the line between being
> practical and being pig headed.


> When a person is at the point of naming an ideal or real
> entity that cannot be  accessed on the Internet; they need
> a simple way to coin the URI. The method they use should
> guarantee that they will not be colliding with other Internet
> behavior such as bookmarking.

Fair enough. But the URI reference that one creates for RDF are
usually FragIDs within some RDF document, not an HTML document, so
this should be practically fine. For exmaple:-


It's an HTML page, you choose to define "#Truth" as some bits of data
in that page. That's absolutely fine, and consistent with how the Web
works and what have you.


That's an RDF document, with a FragID of "#Truth" after it. As such,
you can't browse it conventionally as you would HTML, and it contains
data, not documentation. By adding ID="Truth" your browser won't go to
that FragID. Hence, you can use that to identify your concept of
"Truth", and it won't conflict with any bookmarking programs, because
no one is going to bookmark it - they can't even conventionally access

Is that still being to pig-headed? :-)

Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2001 17:47:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:36 UTC