- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 11:37:52 +0200
- To: tony@tonyhammond.net
- Cc: uri@w3.org, ext Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
On Mar 09, 2004, at 21:08, ext Tony Hammond wrote: > > >> Hi Patrick: >> >>> 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. >>> >> >> Respectfully, must beg to disagree. This notion of limiting fragment >> identifiers to content access only is not how URIs are actually being >> used in practice - I can assure you of that. I have seen clear >> examples (not mine, mind) in which URIs are being implemented in >> production use cases to identify 'secondary' resources wrt 'primary' >> resources. Examples would be useful. I would expect that those 'secondary' resources could just as well have been denoted using URIs without fragids, and their relationship (if any) to the primary resources denoted by the base URIs expressed more effectively in RDF. >> I would suggest that 2396bis has it about right. If the web is to be >> restricted to a world of representations alone then it will be sorely >> tested as a global information space. I never proposed such a thing. You apparently have misunderstood me. >> >> (The purpose of URIs, I would have thought, is not to provide a >> document retrieval mechanism necessarily but to provide node points >> for articulating a common information space.) But this is precisely my problem with URIrefs with fragids. It forces one to interpret such URIs in terms of representation retrieval -- rather than as independent nodes in an information space. URIrefs with fragids are "second class" web URIs because they force one into the domain of "document retrieval" simply to interpret them. Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Nokia, Finland patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Wednesday, 10 March 2004 05:13:46 UTC