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

Re: Fragment identifiers and intermediaries

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 16:18:42 -0400
Message-ID: <071a01c234e1$a4e59330$0a2e249b@nemc.org>
To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, "Christopher B Ferris" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>

Mark Baker wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 04:04:18PM -0400, Christopher B Ferris wrote:
> > No, it is not.
> Sorry, I thought it was obvious from the context of this discussion
> that we were limiting ourselves to RDF.

If that is the case, then when RDF says "resource" read "thing" and
URIreferences are perfectly good opaque identifiers for "things". I see the
architectural issue, but realize that RDF itself (in isolation) has no
problem to the extent that a URIreference is being used as an opaque
identifier, and to the extent that RDF itself doesn't dereference any
URIreferences -- RDF doesn't directly deal with representations, just
"resources" which are actually "things"***


*** a "thing" is the union of RFC 2396 defined "resources" and "nodes"
within an abstract document which are identified with fragment ids
Received on Friday, 26 July 2002 16:24:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:53 UTC