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

Re: URIs vs. URIviews (core issue)

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 16:17:57 -0600
Message-Id: <p05101401b8972cfc92fe@[]>
To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
Cc: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>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.

I fear to tread in these waters, but could this be resolved by 
regarding RDF as being like a media type? That is, RDF applications 
will treat fragment IDs in a particular RDF-ish way, as far as the 
rest of the Web is concerned (so the view from RFC 2369 is that RDF 
is a media type) but in fact are treated uniformly by RDF in the 
privacy of its own application environments (thus satisfying the RDF 
feeling of freedom expressed in the first quote.)


If this is complete nonsense, ignore it.


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Monday, 18 February 2002 17:17:47 UTC

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