W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2003

RE: Proposed issue: site metadata hook (slight variation)

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:39:00 +0200
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B01B90B42@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <JeffreyWinter@crd.com>, <miles@milessabin.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Jeffrey Winter [mailto:JeffreyWinter@crd.com]
> Sent: 12 February, 2003 17:33
> To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere); miles@milessabin.com; 
> www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Proposed issue: site metadata hook (slight variation)
> 
> 
> 
> > IFF you want to posit another URI to denote that body of knowledge,
> > you should be able to, but the architecture should not demand it.
> 
> Well, I think we've reached an impasse here.  I think the architecture
> should absolutely demand it.  

Then I guess we're going to have to figure out a way to convert
all the blank nodes in every RDF graph to URIrefs...

And, by the way, should we also demand that all servers give distinct
URIs to *all* representation variants -- after all, those are distinct
resources and if those are important enough to differentiate between, 
they must be important enough to have their own URIs, no? So lets
*demand* that the Web architecture require URIs for them.

There are *lots* of resources on the Web which have no explicit URI
denotation, but *could* be given URIs if someone wanted to -- it's
just that nobody does or needs to.

Patrick
Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2003 10:39:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:16 GMT