W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > August 2011

naive question: why prefer absolute URIs to # URIs for linked data?

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 13:27:29 -0400
Message-ID: <CACHXnaoCu21O6z4ttHOA4ci_-F8Xx4HjQWGv7DipLz59_oJakg@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-tag@w3.org
Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com>
Question to the broader www-tag readership (and beyond):

I don't want to start another argument, I just want to understand the
position that it is necessary to use absolute (i.e. hashless) URIs
instead of hash URIs for semantic web / linked data purposes, and
record the reasons for this position somewhere. I attempted this in
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/issue57/20110625/#hash  but I feel
the case I made against # URIs there is not convincing.

That is, suppose you want a URI to use in RDF as a reference (name,
"identifier", whatever) for something other than the web page
(document, "information resource", whatever) at that URI. Why is it so
important that the URI be absolute, instead of one containing # ? So
important that the defense of this right would precipitate storms of
email messages, many containing quite strong language?

This question is at the root of the httpRange-14 / ISSUE-57 dispute,
since if # URIs worked for everyone there would be no pressure to use
absolute URIs, and therefore no fight about whether you can use 200 or
are required to use 303. So I'd like to understand this better than I
do.

Please be as specific and concrete as possible. I promise to do my
best to listen patiently, treat all reasons as legitimate, and report
impartially.

Thanks for your help,

Jonathan
Received on Sunday, 28 August 2011 17:27:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:39 GMT