RE: What if an URI also is a URL

>> is it unacceptable to use it as a URI
>> for oneself?
>
>It is very acceptable to use "http://www.example.com/mophor#me" as a
URI for oneself.
>Recomended, in fact.  You should have one.
>
>Mine is http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card#i 

Agreed - but something that has puzzled me - shouldn't the URI scheme be
something other than 'http' (on the assumption that you are not an html
resource!)? 

urn? Something else?

Regards,
John.


-----Original Message-----
From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tim Berners-Lee
Sent: 06 June 2007 14:45
To: Lynn, James (Software Escalations)
Cc: r.j.koppes; www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Subject: Re: What if an URI also is a URL



On 2007-06 -06, at 09:02, Lynn, James (Software Escalations) wrote:

> But then does the same restriction apply to fragment identifiers? In 
> other words if a server returns a fragment for 
> http://www.example.com/mophor#me

The server doesn't see http://www.example.com/mophor#me.

"http://www.example.com/mophor#me"   means "The defined by local  
identifier 'me' in the document 'http://www.example.com/mophor#me' "

This is the web architecture.   The client strips off the '#me'  and  
acceses the dcoument
<http://www.example.com/mophor> (if it hasn't already for some other id
in the same document).
The server sends back a document telling it about <http://
www.example.com/mophor#me> and maybe other things.

> is it unacceptable to use it as a URI
> for oneself?

It is very acceptable to use "http://www.example.com/mophor#me" as a URI
for oneself.
Recomended, in fact.  You should have one.

Mine is http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card#i

Actually if I did it againt I would have made it
http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card#TBL

makes it a bit clearer.

Tim BL

Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2007 14:59:13 UTC