- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:00:59 +0000
- To: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Hi Again :) Last question(s) related to fragments.. if I have: http://example.org/something http://example.org/something#a Those are two unique URIs and thus two unique resources (?) And the semantics of a fragment means that http://example.org/something#a is a secondary resource, where http://example.org/something is the primary resource (?) Then if I delete a Primary resource, the secondary resources must also be deleted, true / false (?). Here are some examples, which may seem like over kill but some are interesting and generally I *feel* rules like this should be either always true, or always false, never varying. examples: if I remove a database table, then all it's rows also no longer exist. if I remove London then the Tower of London also no longer exists. if somebody removes me, then my arms also no longer exist. if I remove test.html then test.html#whatever no longer exists. if I remove test.rdf then test.rdf#this no longer exists if I remove http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card then http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card#i no longer exists. conversely: if I remove a row, the table still exists if I remove the Tower of London, London still exists if you remove my arms, I still exists and I'll find another way to type. if I remove test.html#whatever test.html still exists if I remove test.rdf#this, test.rdf still exists if I remove http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card#i then http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card still exists. If the above is true (secondary resource must also be deleted on removal of primary resource), then I should never use a fragment Identifier to refer to a non-virtual object (i.e. "me" a Person) - because I can't be deleted by simply removing a resource. (?) Regards! Nathan
Received on Friday, 12 March 2010 14:01:39 UTC