Re: URIs vs. URIviews (core issue)

On 2002-02-15 10:24 PM, "Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com> wrote:

> RDF uses (or allows use of) fragment identifiers in a way that is
> presumed to be independent of any particular data representation that a
> resource may have.

Yes, and moreover, the URI RFC says that this is specifically not the case:

"The semantics of a fragment identifier is a property of the data resulting
from a retrieval action, regardless of the type of URI used in the
reference.  Therefore, the format and interpretation of fragment identifiers
is dependent on the media type [RFC2046] of the retrieval result."
 - RFC 2396, section 4.1

I think DanC and I agree that this is the core issue of debate.

Dan claims that this doesn't restrict the meaning of URIs-with-fragments
(i.e. they can be treated like any other URI), I claim it restricts them as
to make them useless for our purposes.

-- 
[ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ]

Received on Sunday, 17 February 2002 22:28:40 UTC