RE: fragment identifiers from Joshua Allen on 2002-07-24 (www-tag@w3.org from July 2002)

From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 22:28:18 -0700
To: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, "Graham Klyne" <GK@NineByNine.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>, <timbl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4F4182C71C1FDD4BA0937A7EB7B8B4C105DCDA1C@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

> why this must be the case -- e.g. what breaks if we allow something
like
> http://example.org/term/Car to refer to the concept "Car"? RDF would
be
> happy as a clam with this.

There are systems built on RDF which are NOT "happy as a clam" with
this.  EARL is one example.  

RDF itself is neutral; at best you could say that RDF is ambivalent.
The systems which use RDF will NOT be ambivalent about identity, though.

Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2002 01:28:53 UTC