- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 01:27:29 +0200
- To: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
- Cc: <uri@w3.org>
* Aaron Swartz wrote:
I'm not an RDF expert, nor do I think I can read and interprete RFC 2396
better than Dan Connolly and Roy T. Fielding, but let me try to add my
0,02€:
>In RDF, I've seen people binding URIs like:
>
>http://example.org/q#foo
> and
>http://example.org/q#bar
>
>to different resources. The URI spec clearly says: [...]
>[...] the only resource involved is that of the absolute URI itself.
>
>[...] If so, it would have serious consequences
>for many RDF specifications.
RDF defines "resources" as "things being described by RDF expressions"
that "are always named by URIs plus optional anchor ids", this means RDF
uses the semantics of the 'anchor ids' (-> fragment identifiers) for the
given media type to define/identify a "resource" while RFC 2396 doesn't.
--
Björn Höhrmann { mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de } http://www.bjoernsworld.de
am Badedeich 7 } Telefon: +49(0)4667/981028 { http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
25899 Dagebüll { PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 } http://www.learn.to/quote/
Received on Friday, 11 May 2001 19:25:57 UTC