W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > February 2006

Re: WNet review

From: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetilk@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 17:36:27 +0100
To: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
Cc: SWBPD list <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <200602091736.28622.kjetilk@opera.com>


Thanks for posting!

On Thursday 09 February 2006 16:50, Guus Schreiber wrote:
> There is a revised editor's draft of the "WordNet in RDF/OWL"
> document, 

Just a tiny thing in the hash vs. slash discussion:

I believe it would be customary to not use a trailing slash on the 
fragment identifier, so you might find it preferable to use

I fully support the use of the slash rather than the hash in this 
context. But was wondering why you do not use slashes as delimiters 

Why not e.g.:
or another example, including a wn version:

Or perhaps you'd like a single retrievable resource for that term, it 
intuitively makes sense to use a fragment identifier for different 
meanings, so perhaps reintroduce the hash again:

Allthough I'm a big fan of decoupling the the URI from the filesystem, 
clearly in this case (given that it changes seldom and that there are a 
quite high number of terms), it would lend itself quite nice to being 
stored in a file system: There has however been OSes that imposes tight 
constraints on how many files you can have in a directory. Distributing 
the terms into a file hierarchy may therefore ease the serving of the 

Also, I usually think of slashes as delimiters as prettier in URIs... 
But that's just aesthetics... :-)


Kjetil Kjernsmo
Information Systems Developer
Opera Software ASA
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2006 16:36:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:46 UTC