Re: Another fragment issue

Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> wrote:

>> Graham Klyne (first?) spotted this with his terminology definitions[1]. At
>> the time I didn't understand the issue and so when Danbri made it seem[2] as
>> if the problem were simply referring to things not available over the
>> Internet I didn't worry about it anymore.
> 
> I was reacting to a much earlier comment by DanBri in [1];  my response at
> the time [2] highlights the particular comment.  This was the comment that
> made it clear to me that RDF resources couldn't simply be equated with Web
> resources.

The issues are all clearly very complicated, but the pointers you provide
seem to elaborate on how fragment identifiers are ineffective for discussing
portions of resources -- the same conclusion that led Roy not to define them
as such.

I still believe your terminology definitions were the first to point out the
actually incompatibility in the specs. Roy, do you have an earlier citation?

[Graham's citations]
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Mar/0028.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Mar/0039.html
> 
> [Aaron's citations]
>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Jan/0006.html
>> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Jan/0104.html

-- 
[ Aaron Swartz | me@aaronsw.com | http://www.aaronsw.com ]