- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 17:28:40 -0400 (EDT)
- To: fmanola@mitre.org
- Cc: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org> Subject: Re: pfps-15 say anything quote Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 15:45:25 -0400 [I'm not particularly worried about the caveat stuff.] > > I wish that the Primer didn't use URI references without fragment IDs so > > much. I think that it would also be a good idea to use the redirected > > versions of the DC elements, as they are URI references with fragment > > identifiers. > > It seems to me there'a reasonable distribution of both kinds of URIrefs, > and since both kinds are legal, and the WG hasn't taken an offical > position (as far as I know) on this issue, I thought I'd better be > "unbiased" in the Primer (Syntax is similarly "unbiased"). This use of URI references without fragment IDs can lead to a confusion between documents and resources. It is not a big issue for me, but it may be for others. (Who, apparently, have not complained.) > I'm not sure what you mean about "the redirected versions of the DC > elements". As far as I know, the official URI assigned to the DC terms > continues to not use fragment IDs, e.g., > http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title. Can you clarify? When I type http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title in to my browser, the URI that comes back is http://dublincore.org/2003/03/24/dces#title, which I think is much in keeping with the RDF philosophy on such URIs. > --Frank peter
Received on Thursday, 7 August 2003 17:28:53 UTC