W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2002

RE: Fragment identifiers and intermediaries

From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 11:28:41 -0700
Message-ID: <4F4182C71C1FDD4BA0937A7EB7B8B4C105DCDD12@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>

> > Can you please elaborate on how you believe RDF to be related to
> > *accessing* a resource?
> 
> Well, RDF is what you get when you access a resource.  And by virtue

However, asking a resource to tell you what assertions exist about it is
not "semantic web".  Consider if Microsoft put up a bulletin board for
people to place product reviews, comments, etc. about Microsoft.  Do you
suppose that http://www.microsoft.com is the first place people would go
to find trustworthy information about other people's opinions?

When you ask a friend to tell you how the movie was, do you call up
Universal studios and as "What did my friend think of the movie?"

> e.g. if you click on http://example.org/#cat or
http://example.org/#dog
> then an intermediary will only know that you clicked on
http://example.org, 
> and therefore not whether you wanted to know more about cats or dogs.

The intermediary is only useful for retrieving resource representations
anyway.

The client would presumably be configured to query trusted metadata
sources concurrent with the request to access the resource.  In other
words, accessing a *resource* and accessing assertion *about* a resource
are two different things.  HTTP GET to a related endpoint is *not* the
way that people will collect assertions *about* an endpoint.
Received on Friday, 26 July 2002 14:29:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:10 GMT