- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 21:06:30 +0100
- To: "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net>, <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
- Cc: <Ora.Lassila@nokia.com>
> [1] http://robustai.net/~seth/index.htm > [2] http://robustai.net/~seth/index.htm#Truth O.K., TimBL has actually argued against using URLs as in [1] for concepts, because they do represent retrievable entities according to the HTTP specification. However, you *can't* say that about [2] because it's a URI reference, and they just give a representation of something that is defined in that URI based upon the content. It is a part or view of the concept to which you are referring to. The "upon the content" bit is annoying, and hence Jonathan Borden's nice little proposal. So I'll give a "don't care" on the usage of [1], and an all O.K. on the usage of [2]. Note that:- [[[ The fragment identifier on an RDF (or N3) document identifies not a part of the document, but whatever thing, abstract or concrete, animate or innanimate, the document describes as having that identifier. ]]] - http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Fragment Which will hopefully be encoded in the MIME type specification for RDF. -- Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer @prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> . :Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2001 16:06:00 UTC