Re: fragment identifiers

Joshua Allen wrote:

>
> It's a "should", not a "must".  Systems that will "break" are systems
> which assume that an http: identifier identifies a hypermedia resource
> meant to be accessed via a web browser.

You got it right when you said: "URIs are the _words_ of the internet"
(italics mine). Think about this sentence. It is correct. Dereferencable
URIs create words whose definition can be accessed as a resource.

http://example.org/term/Car

=> text/plain, "A car, aka an 'automobile' is a four wheeled ...."
=> image/jpeg ... example of a car
=> text/html ... hypertext description of a car e.g. the term 'automobile'
can be <a> hrefed as a synonym
=> application/rdf+xml ... RDF description of "Car" ala WordNet

>
> People SHOULD use http: identifiers only to refer to resources which
> they intend to be accessed through HTTP.

Right, but the concept "Car" can be accessed via HTTP which returns _a
description of the concept_

>
> Sorry to sound frustrated, but this is THE most important issue to the
> semantic web.  There is nothing more important than agreeing on an
> identification scheme that unambiguously (to the extent possible)
> identifies things.  I have commented on this issue on my personal web
> log:
> http://www.netcrucible.com/blog/2002/07/20.html#a225
>

You continue to mistake the representation of a resource (which must be a
document when using HTTP) for the resource itself, which might be anything
with identity e.g. a concept

URIs are words of the Web. Modern languages must be able to talk about
concepts.

Jonathan

Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2002 06:57:08 UTC