RE: Using fragment identifiers with URNs

Me> Actually, I'm not proposing making a change, just finding out how
Me> compatible the IETF notion of a URI is with the use of a URI scheme
Me> to represent abstract names with no retrieval semantics. [...]

Al Gilman>                 ... with no associated Resources?             <<<

The resource could be an abstract concept or property such as the
notion of the height of something, or a physical entity such as the
tree outside my window.

> 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?

Are these rhetorical questions?  If so, I'm afraid I don't get your
point.

- Stephen