- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 11:11:50 +0200
- To: "ext Graham Klyne" <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
Fair enough. I certainly didn't intend to put words in your mouth. I personally see fragment identifiers as a post-retrieval processing instruction to a particular class of application concerned with presentation/manipulation of representations. To that end, I find it hard to see any utility in fragment identifiers to the semantic web. If one has a "first class" resource, then one should use a URI without any fragment identifier -- so that it is possible to both describe that resource using RDF statements as well as access representations of that resource *directly* using HTTP. I think that the generalization of what essentially was a content access mechanism into an mechanism for denoting "secondary resources" is a failed experiment that will, as the web and SW evolves, offer less and less utility. Cheers, Patrick On Mar 08, 2004, at 15:50, ext Graham Klyne wrote: > > At 13:55 08/03/04 +0100, Patrick Stickler wrote: > >> On Feb 27, 2004, at 20:23, ext Graham Klyne wrote: >> >>> ... I'm not sure that it is at all meaningful to employ a fragment >>> identifier at all. >> >> I've come to the same conclusion. > > I'm concerned that I have been quoted out-of-context. My original > message containing that quote is at: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2004Feb/0148.html > > Specifically, the quoted phrase was prefixed with: > "In such an environment, " > (referring to an environment in which "a given URI has no retrievable > representation") > > On reflection, I'd change the "at all" to "especially", and note that > the comment should be interpreted in light of: > http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-webarch-20031209/#pr-describe-resource > > #g > > > ------------ > Graham Klyne > For email: > http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact > > -- Patrick Stickler Nokia, Finland patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Tuesday, 9 March 2004 04:11:57 UTC