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

RE: [metaDataInURI-31]: Initial draft finding for public review/comment.

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:44:53 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B0263018A@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, <skw@hp.com>, <MDaconta@aol.com>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
 

 
Another example, that links with the httpRange-14 debate. One position in that debate is that http scheme URIs without fragment identifiers may only be used to identify network accessible resources, and may not be used to identify abstract concepts (eg. a particular emotion) or a real-world object (like DanC's car or a person) eg. using  <http://people.example.com/stuart> http://people.example.com/stuart to identify me would be frowned upon.  
 

I personally take the opposing view, and find the use of URIs with fragment
identifiers to be unwise and problemmatic, and see no reason, technical,
philosophical, or practical which would warrant any such restriction from
using http: URIs to denote any entity whatsoever that can be named and
thus referred to.
 
 

 
To clarify, I'm not opposed to URIrefs completely, just for using them
to denote anything other than a structural or logical subpart of the
resource denoted by the base URI.
 
I.e. one should be able to infer a partOf relation between any 
resource denoted by a URIref with fragid and the resource
denoted by the base URI.
 
Patrick
 
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2003 09:44:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:18 GMT