- From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 14:50:00 -0400
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, www-tag@w3.org
On 2011-08 -31, at 17:39, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > Spot on. Couldn't agree more. > -Alan > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com> wrote: >> I think there are a number of contributing factors: >> >> 1) architecturally the meaning of the fragment is determined by the media >> type of the representation. Thus meaning of a hash URI depends on how you >> access it. Let me first declare this a red herring. It is convenient to be able to server a file up say in RDF/XML and N3 and content negotiate, but a condition of doing this is that the meaning is NOT changed between the two. Any more than if you served a document saying "It is sunny" in text/html and one saying "it is rainy" in application/xhtml+xml. Typically with for example rdf/xml and turtle, the same RDF graph is sent. We could quibble around the edges of this, but basically it i not a valuable way to spend time. And the meaning any document you get back even if you *don't* use a hashURI depends on the media type in exactly the same way. So the meaning of the original URI referred to in that document similarly would depend on the media type to the same extent. Now to the more interesting questions in another message. Tim
Received on Friday, 2 September 2011 18:50:06 UTC