- From: Michael Mealling <michael@neonym.net>
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 14:19:28 -0400
- To: Stephen Cranefield <SCranefield@infoscience.otago.ac.nz>
- Cc: "'uri@w3.org'" <uri@w3.org>
On Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 09:49:43AM +1200, Stephen Cranefield wrote: > Thanks for your comments. So it sounds as if it *is* OK to define a URN > scheme that states specifically that retrieval is not meaningful. In that > case, the URI reference syntax should not be used with URIs from that > scheme, as they would be meaningless. Would you agree with that? Incorrect due to an insufficient definition of 'retrieval'. The OID URN namespace says that there is no _authoritative_ retrieval mechanism defined and indeed the document doubts if one could be built. But that's simply one type of 'retrieval'. A local store of DTDs using an OID URN as the key would be 'retrieval' and thus a fragment would have meaning. I.e. if you can come up with some set of state in which the fragment has meaning by using the URI as a key in some database then the frament has meaning. Fragments aren't part of the URI. They're part of the thing the URI identifies. The idea of whether or not a fragment is 'valid' has everything to do with the thing identified and nothing really at all to do with the URI itself... -MM -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Mealling | Vote Libertarian! | urn:pin:1 michael@neonym.net | | http://www.neonym.net
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2001 14:23:28 UTC