- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 07:20:48 -0400
- To: "Hammond, Tony" <T.Hammond@nature.com>
- cc: "'Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com'" <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, leo@gnowsis.com, mdirector@iptc.org, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> I thought the advantage of using fragments was that (after reconstruction of
> the original URI from the QName) one would have a natural means of
> addressing into an XML document (describing the schema) using XPointer
> methodology. Am I wrong in this?
I'm afraid you are. While it may be possible to do what you're
describing, I've never seen it done, and I've never heard the
advocates of fragment-URIs suggest it.
The good reasons I've heard are mostly:
(1) convenience: dereference of the URI gets the ontology (schema)
without any special server configuration
(2) architectural coherence: some people (notably TimBL) think of
non-fragment URIs as identifying documents; they find it jarring
(or incoherent) when such URIs are used to identify properties,
people, etc.
-- sandro
Received on Wednesday, 6 October 2004 11:16:29 UTC