W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > September 2001

Re: Working on glossary

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 11:01:49 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 01:59 PM 9/4/01 -0500, Aaron Swartz wrote:
>On Tuesday, September 4, 2001, at 11:50  AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
>>There seems to be this disconnect between resources on the web, 
>>identified by URIs (NOT URI-references), and RDF resources that can be 
>>identified by a URI+fragment identifier.
>First Resources can be identified by URIs, but need not be. Just because 
>they don't have URIs doesn't mean that they aren't Resources. (That's my 
>understanding, at least.)

That isn't obviously a universally held view.  The fact that it seems that 
such different views *can* exist was the reason for raising this point 
(effectively, for discussion) in the original glossary.

>>I can see how real numbers fit into the latter case, but not the 
>>former.  Can you elucidate?
>I don't understand that comment at all. How does adding a fragment 
>identifier make the URI-ref more or less able to identify a real number?

Sorry, I was not being clear...  the possible use as identifier wasn't in 
question.  But it didn't seem to me that there is an obvious way of putting 
an real number on the web in such a way that it's URI usefully identifies 
it.  (There are clearly many possible technical solutions, but none I can 
think of that seem obviously useful for general use.)


Graham Klyne                    Baltimore Technologies
Strategic Research              Content Security Group
<Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>    <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
Received on Wednesday, 5 September 2001 07:06:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:04 UTC