W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > June 2012

Re: Semantic URI Syntax

From: Norman Gray <norman@astro.gla.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:04:52 +0100
Cc: David Sheets <sheets@alum.mit.edu>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B5252C4A-048F-47F3-87CD-8AB5A74F29ED@astro.gla.ac.uk>
To: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>


On 2012 Jun 27, at 10:26, Martin Hepp wrote:

> On Jun 26, 2012, at 8:54 PM, David Sheets wrote:
>> Is this scheme-dependent?
> From the top of my head, the hash fragment is defined for HTTP and HTTPS URIs only.

No, the fragment, and some of its semantics, are defined for all URIs.

As it happens, I had cause to go into this particular question in some depth, in a context involving (regrettably) non-HTTP URIs.  See <http://www.ivoa.net/Documents/Notes/URIFragments/index.html> for discussion and pointers.

>> Is this question answered somewhere online already?
> For URIs in the context of HTTP, RFC 2616, Section 3.2.3 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt) is the authoritative spec:

And the question of URI comparison is discussed in more general detail in Section 6 of RFC 3986 <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt>.  Section 6 can be summarised as "Oh, it's all terribly complicated...", with the consequence that standards which use URIs other than simply for retrieval need to define their own equivalence functions, which <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/> does in Section 6.4 (echoing what Martin said).

All the best,


Norman Gray  :  http://nxg.me.uk
SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK
Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2012 10:05:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:48:37 UTC