- From: Tony Hammond <tonyhammond@mac.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 20:55:07 +0000
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
Yes, but if there is no representation - either on a per-URI basis or on a per-scheme basis - then what? I decline to consider the possibility of some 3rd party hack which provides a resolution tier if that is specifically excluded by protocol semantics - e.g. 'info'. How does one retrieve a self-declared non-dereferenceable URI (as are all info URIs being so defined as a class)? Let's not even mention DDDS - it cannot be authoritative as far as an info URI is concerned. Rules is rules. But the info URI (with fragid) is still a bona fide URI. It's not asking to be dereferenced - merely articulating two dependent resources. Tony On 11 Mar 2004, at 12:18, Patrick Stickler wrote: > > > 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 15:55:33 UTC