- From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 17:11:46 -0500
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- CC: RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@ebuilt.com>
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 ]
Received on Friday, 25 May 2001 18:12:51 UTC