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 19:08:19 +0200
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B01B90B48@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 17:59
> 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...
> 
> I was speaking specifically about the "document" that would 
> be returned
> when doing an MGET (or GET+Meta:); that document should have 
> a distinct
> URI.

Fair enough. But I disagree. It *might* have a distinct URI. But
it shouldn't *have* to have one. No more so that a given variant
representation returned by GET *has* to have one.

Patrick
Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2003 12:08:23 GMT

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