- From: Graham Klyne <gk-lists@dial.pipex.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:59:24 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: "'uri@w3.org'" <uri@w3.org>
Dan, I am intrigued as to why you feel that a URI-reference with fragment identifier can be more soundly associated with the denotation of a definite description than a URI. Can you elucidate a little? (i.e. what is the identifying or other denotational property of a fragment identifier that is not possessed by a full URI?) #g -- At 12:23 AM 10/17/00 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: >But let's take a look at a few identifiers that I >do have social/legal authority to bind (and >which I do hereby bind): > > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/c060d0d-103-501-b07-1090c0030e > >If you try to access that with your web browser, you >may discover, by way of the "403 Forbidden" response >that I do not authorize you to observe >my book via HTTP. I'm pretty sure it's impossible >to refute my claim that this identifier denotes >this book. But using the http URI scheme does >have some practical connotations that make >it awkward to use as a book, and I'm not >certain of the logical indistinguishability. > >But I'm pretty certain this one, which, >again, I do hereby bind to denote that book, >cannot be distinguished from the book >by any logical argument: > > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/#c060d0d-103-501-b07-1090c0030e > >That is: I'm pretty certain that URI references that include >fragment identifiers can be bound to the same >denotation as *any* natural language definite description[dd] >without any logical problems. > > >[dd] http://www.w3.org/Architecture/Terms#definite-description ------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Klyne Content Technologies Ltd. Strategic Research <http://www.mimesweeper.com> <Graham.Klyne@mimesweeper.com> ------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 17 October 2000 10:05:51 UTC