W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > October 2000

Re: URIs for Physical Items

From: Graham Klyne <gk-lists@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:59:24 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: "'uri@w3.org'" <uri@w3.org>

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?)


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>
Received on Tuesday, 17 October 2000 10:05:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:02 UTC