RE: Resources and URIs

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Williams, Stuart [mailto:skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: 29 April, 2003 16:45
> To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere); danbri@w3.org;
> cowan@mercury.ccil.org
> Cc: phayes@ai.uwf.edu; gk@ninebynine.org; uri@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Resources and URIs
> 
> 
> Hi Patrick,
> 
> One smallish niggle. The term URIRef from 2396 is inclusive 
> of references
> that do not happen to have fragment identfiers.
>
> > In fact, in our ontologies at Nokia, we use no URIrefs.
> 
> I rather think you do... but I suspect that you don't use fragment
> identifiers in those ontologies.

Point taken. Yes. Then we use URIrefs, but not URIrefs with
fragment identifiers.


> I've come to find the term URI-Reference apt for references 
> made, say in
> hypertext documents or on the side of busses, using URI 
> syntax rather than
> as a term for distinguishing URI with fragment ids from those 
> without -
> which the term doesn't infact do in any case.

Fair enough. I guess I now need another term to distinguish a URI
with fragment id from one without...

Patrick

 
> Regards
> 
> Stuart
> --
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com [mailto:Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com]
> > Sent: 29 April 2003 13:31
> > To: danbri@w3.org; cowan@mercury.ccil.org
> > Cc: phayes@ai.uwf.edu; gk@ninebynine.org; uri@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Resources and URIs
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ext Dan Brickley [mailto:danbri@w3.org]
> > > Sent: 29 April, 2003 15:19
> > > To: John Cowan
> > > Cc: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere); phayes@ai.uwf.edu;
> > > gk@ninebynine.org; uri@w3.org
> > > Subject: Re: Resources and URIs
> > > 
> > > 
> > > * John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> [2003-04-29 08:03-0400]
> > > > 
> > > > Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com scripsit:
> > > > 
> > > > > If Tim says that http://www.w3.org/Consortium/ 
> denotes the W3C,
> > > > > then that's (probably) what it denotes.
> > > > 
> > > > Fair enough.
> > > 
> > > I very much doubt that Tim has said that (recently at least). It 
> > > might have been used hypothetically in an argument.
> > 
> > Hence my "(probably)". After all, hearsay is hearsay...
> > 
> > > My understanding of his view is that http: URIs can only name 
> > > documents, unless they're URIrefs containing # in which case they
> > > can name things of any kind.
> > 
> > Well, I'm also familiar with Tim's recent arguments along these
> > lines, though I think he is in this case in a pretty small minority.
> > 
> > If URIs can denote anything, then one need not use a URIref to 
> > denote something that is not a "web document".
> > 
> > I personally find the use of URIrefs to denote anything other than
> > logical and/or physical components of the resource denoted by the
> > base URI to be poor practice and contrary to the original purpose
> > of fragment identifiers.
> > 
> > So I would be quite happy to have the abovementioned URI denote
> > the W3C with no qualms about it not being a URIref.
> > 
> > In fact, in our ontologies at Nokia, we use no URIrefs.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > Patrick
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2003 09:55:45 UTC