W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2002

Re: fragment identifiers

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 06:41:43 -0400
Message-ID: <003601c232fe$b77e87c0$0201a8c0@ne.mediaone.net>
To: "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@microsoft.com>, "Graham Klyne" <GK@NineByNine.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>, <timbl@w3.org>

Joshua Allen wrote:

> It's a "should", not a "must".  Systems that will "break" are systems
> which assume that an http: identifier identifies a hypermedia resource
> meant to be accessed via a web browser.

You got it right when you said: "URIs are the _words_ of the internet"
(italics mine). Think about this sentence. It is correct. Dereferencable
URIs create words whose definition can be accessed as a resource.


=> text/plain, "A car, aka an 'automobile' is a four wheeled ...."
=> image/jpeg ... example of a car
=> text/html ... hypertext description of a car e.g. the term 'automobile'
can be <a> hrefed as a synonym
=> application/rdf+xml ... RDF description of "Car" ala WordNet

> People SHOULD use http: identifiers only to refer to resources which
> they intend to be accessed through HTTP.

Right, but the concept "Car" can be accessed via HTTP which returns _a
description of the concept_

> Sorry to sound frustrated, but this is THE most important issue to the
> semantic web.  There is nothing more important than agreeing on an
> identification scheme that unambiguously (to the extent possible)
> identifies things.  I have commented on this issue on my personal web
> log:
> http://www.netcrucible.com/blog/2002/07/20.html#a225

You continue to mistake the representation of a resource (which must be a
document when using HTTP) for the resource itself, which might be anything
with identity e.g. a concept

URIs are words of the Web. Modern languages must be able to talk about

Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2002 06:57:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:52 UTC