Re: [ALL] proposed resolution httpRange-14

At 06:11 PM 3/17/2005 +0000, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>I propose that
>an http URI without a hash MAY be used to identify an RDF property
>Our primary concern is:
>    - deployed semantic web applications such as Dublin Core [1],
>Friend-of-a-friend [2], Creative Commons [3], Adobe XMP [4], RSS 1.0 [5]
>that use such URIs
>Other important concerns are:
>    - the practical difficulty of using '#' namespace URIs for large
>vocabularies such as wordnet
>    - the impossibility of doing server side redirects on '#' URIs

We might quibble over whether there is a "primary" concern and
two "secondary" ones or whether each is primary to some
constituency.  We heard input at the Boston meeting that each
of these three was key to someone.

I suggest rewording as "Our primary concerns are:" and not
separating two subclasses.  I further suggest generalizing
"server side redirects on '#'" to "server side processing of
the fragment identifier component" (that is the language of
RFC 3986).

Otherwise, I have no trouble with the tone of this draft (or perhaps
have simply gotten comfortable with it.)  I think the TAG will understand
that we are prompted to send this resolution by a consensus that leaving
it as an open issue is as much or more harmful to our deployment efforts
as are some of the possible TAG findings on the issue.


Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2005 19:00:48 UTC