RE: Using fragment identifiers with URNs

At 11:13 PM 2001-09-27 , Stephen Cranefield wrote:
>Roy Fielding wrote:
>> Note, however, that your suggested change would
>> restrict the applicability of a URI-reference beyond what the 
>> specification currently requires, to the point where it conflicts
>> with the Web.  You are suggesting that an application-specific
>> requirement be placed on an existing protocol element in order
>> to satisfy some restriction that somebody wants to use within RDF.
>> I don't see any reason why we should make that change.
>Actually, I'm not proposing making a change, just finding out how
>compatible the IETF notion of a URI is with the use of a URI scheme
>to represent abstract names with no retrieval semantics.  The answer
                         ... with no associated Resources?             <<<
>seems to be that it's not compatible.  For the record though, I don't
>see how such a change would "conflict with the Web".

What does the 'opaquelocktoken' scheme have to tell us here?

Is this compatible with the IETF doctrine on URIs?  

Can someone construct a scenario in which a #fragment appended to one of these
would ever see a context of use?


>- Stephen

Received on Thursday, 27 September 2001 23:33:20 UTC