W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > February 2007

Re: [BioRDF] URI Resolution

From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 14:22:45 -0500
Message-ID: <45C4E105.1000205@musc.edu>
CC: public-semweb-lifesci <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>

Matthias Samwald wrote:
>
> > - If the server replies 303 See Other, follow the link in the
>
> > response to get information about resource. [obscure hack but worth
>
> > a try]
>
> > (see http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#httpRange-14)
>
>  
>
> I guess we should find a diplomatic formulation for that.
>
>  
>
I find the working a bit too "arrogant" too. 303 is a necessary solution 
for "slash" URI, which has many advantages under various circumstances.   
>
> Xiaoshu, you probably criticise the need for additional triples, but 
> you need to be aware that these additional statements are only made 
> for *information resources*, not for all resources in the RDF graph. 
> If you look at most of the current biomedical RDF/OWL datasets, 
> information resources are only a small fraction of all defined resources.
>

I am not sure if I have missed something, why only "information 
resources" need to be persistently resolved? Unless, you are suggesting 
that we only "hash" URI is used for non-IR.  This debate has been going 
on for quite a while, I think both hash and slash URI will exist in 
practice. What you can probably suggest is the resolve the URI's 
namespace, perhaps?

Also, I found this sentence in the example of the problem statement

"...How to make the user's application work without having to rewrite 
the RDF? "

You still need to rewrite the RDF even if you have a resolution 
ontology, am I right?

Cheers,

Xiaoshu
Received on Saturday, 3 February 2007 19:23:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:00:46 GMT