- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 17 Dec 2001 16:36:00 -0600
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
[in the hopes of being able to find these again in the future...] On Mon, 2001-12-17 at 16:22, Mark Baker wrote: > Hi all, > > In response to Tim's request for a list of some issues, I offer my > thoughts. This is by no means an exhaustive list. I've just picked > the ones that, to me, seem to be most urgent to resolve as they're > either a) topical, b) potential sources of great pain in the future, > or c) both 8-). Luckily, I've only got two. > > Issue; URIs versus URI references > > This issue flares up every so often. It involves disagreement about > whether it's ok or not for RDF to make assertions with URI references. > Given that the R in RDF stands for "resource", some feel that it should > be limited to using URIs, not URI references, as URI references are not > URIs and therefore do not identify resources. Others don't see the > problem. I personally find it of great concern that so much of W3C work > is using URI references instead of URIs, without considering the > implications. XML Schema datatypes does not include a URI type; anyURI > is a URI reference. > > Aaron wrote up a good summary of this issue at [1]. > [1] http://logicerror.com/fragmentProblems -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 17 December 2001 17:36:03 UTC