W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2002

Re: URIs vs. URIviews (was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-02-15)

From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 08:55:37 -0600
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B8967209.210C9%me@aaronsw.com>
On 2002-02-18 3:20 AM, "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:

>> Of course! I don't think anyone disagrees with that. The issue at hand is
>> whether we can define it as naming an abstract resource. See my message
>> "URIs vs. URIviews (core issue)".
> Hmmm, that seems like a question about the nature of resources and what
> names them.  These are questions we have kicked to the tag.

No, the issue is what URI-references name. I think it's pretty unambiguously
clear and I've seen Roy Fielding, Al Gilman, and many others say the same
thing. I guess we could take it to the TAG if we wanted to be absolutely
sure, but I'm not sure how they can say anything different than what the
spec says. 
> Have I understood you correctly?  You are arguing, not that we should
> answer this question, but that we should discourage folks from using uri's
> with frag id's until this has been cleaned up?

I think the question is answered (feel free to look at the text in RFC2396
and decide for yourself). But yes, I think we should discourage their use as
a way to stop things from getting worse.

[ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ]
Received on Monday, 18 February 2002 09:55:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:10 UTC