W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2003

RE: httpRange-14

From: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 05:44:56 -0700
Message-ID: <830178CE7378FC40BC6F1DDADCFDD1D1173B14@RED-MSG-31.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>
Cc: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>, "Norman Walsh" <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, <www-tag@w3.org>

I've always thought this was the obvious solution to the RDF issue instead of engaging in months of pointless metaphysical debates on the true nature of URIs. RDF needs unambiguous identifiers that don't have the baggage that exists with current URI schemes and their association with network retrievable information resources. 


From: www-tag-request@w3.org on behalf of Sandro Hawke
Sent: Tue 7/29/2003 5:25 AM
To: Roy T. Fielding
Cc: Tim Berners-Lee; Norman Walsh; www-tag@w3.org
Subject: Re: httpRange-14 

Of course, RDF is *not* specified this way.  It says "use URIs".  The
workaround is to define a URI scheme with no retreival mechanism.
That of course is the motivation for my tag: URI scheme [4], first
proposed about two months after I really looked at RDF.  Since then
I've been struggling with whether the benefits of retreival (as above)
are really worth it.  (And also with how to explain it to the IETF,
although there seems to have been some recent progress.)

     -- sandro

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0384.html
[2] http://www.apache.org/~fielding/uri/rev-2002/rfc2396bis.html
[3] http://esw.w3.org/topic/SelfAnsweringQuestion
[4] http://taguri.org
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2003 08:45:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:00 UTC