- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 09:10:31 +0000
- To: Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>
- CC: Jacco van Ossenbruggen <Jacco.van.Ossenbruggen@cwi.nl>, Peter Mika <pmika@cs.vu.nl>, "'Aldo Gangemi'" <aldo.gangemi@istc.cnr.it>, public-swbp-wg@w3.org, schreiber@cs.vu.nl, Benjamin.Nguyen@inria.fr
Mark van Assem wrote: > 3) I don't think we can ask Princeton to do something that is more > complex than serving file(s) at a particular location (or can we, > Aldo?). Is the slash solution practical enough? > (Note: I am only dipping in and out of this thread ... feel free to ignore anything I say that is not helpful) In light of the httpRange-14 resolution, the slash solution is not totally trivial, since there is meant to be a 303 response in there somewhere .... An http: URI is gettable. It always make sense to try and do a GET request on it. We do have to decide what happens. This is not a recent innovation, but inherent in using http: URIs. The GET request discards any fragment. One option would be to 404 .... (not that I am proposing that, just giving background to the problem). So there are two, related but separable problems: a) what are convenient sets of files for different sorts of users, to use as wordnet in RDF & OWL? b) what does a GET return on each of the wordnet URIs? It would be possible to answer a) and to provide mechanisms such as zip downloads to implement a), and to answer b) in a fairly unrelated fashion. Not advocacy. Jeremy
Received on Friday, 16 December 2005 09:12:54 UTC