- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 14:18:58 +0200
- To: uri@w3.org
I don't in any way disagree with what you write below or Larry's comment. I also don't see how it contradicts my statement that fragids force one into the domain of document retrieval since no matter how you model it, you cannot get from a URIref with fragid to a representation of the secondary resource without *first* obtaining a representation of the primary resource. Patrick On Mar 11, 2004, at 07:14, ext Adam M. Costello BOGUS address, see signature wrote: > > > Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com> wrote: > >> URIrefs with fragids are "second class" web URIs because they force >> one into the domain of "document retrieval" simply to interpret them. > > URIs identify resources, so there must be a conceptual function g that > maps URIs to resources. We can impose a constraint on that function: > > g must be separable into g1 and g2 such that > for all URIs of the form scheme:stuff#frag > g(scheme,stuff,frag) = g2(g1(scheme,stuff),frag) > > In other words, > > primary resource r1 = g1(scheme,stuff) > secondary resource r2 = g2(r1,frag) = g(scheme,stuff,frag) > > There is no need to talk about retrieval or representation in order > to express this separability constraint. The key is that g1 does > not depend on frag, and g2 depends on r1 itself, not on the URI used > to identify r1 (there might be several URIs that identify r1 using > different schemes). [Concrete examples involving retrieval and > representation are still helpful for building intuition.] > > This is just a formal restatement of Larry Masinter's succint "the > important bit is that the fragment identifier is not used in the > scheme-specific processing of the URI." > > AMC > http://www.nicemice.net/amc/ > > -- Patrick Stickler Nokia, Finland patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Thursday, 11 March 2004 07:19:34 UTC