Re: absolute-URIs-with-optional-fragmenmt-identifiers

At 09:59 AM 9/20/01 -0500, Aaron Swartz wrote:
>On Thursday, September 20, 2001, at 09:44  AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
>
>>>:We :between ( [a :Rock] [ a :Place ; :feel :Hard ] ) .
>>>"We're between a rock and a hard place."
>>
>>... much as we might wish to fix this problem, I think that it's beyond 
>>our charter to do so, for reasons of backwards compatibility.
>
>I disagree with that statement -- our charter is to fix problems with the 
>spec! Obviously we must attempt to do it in a backwards compatible way, 
>but this is no excuse to ignore the issue. There are a number of solutions 
>to this issue, and only one of them is making documents with 
>WebRefs/URI-views illegal.

Well, I apologize if I misunderstood you, but that seemed to be what you 
were suggesting.

I find it difficult to see how we can resolve this without (a) disallowing 
"URI-view"s in RDF, or (b) undertaking a possibly rat-holing task of 
redefining the nature of URIs and URI-references when used with RDF, which 
I think may be stretching the charter.  However, I do think it is an 
important issue and I am open to other ideas.

#g


------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)

Received on Thursday, 20 September 2001 14:00:27 UTC