W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > May 2008

Re: Biological Taxonomy Vocabulary 0.1

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 19:33:57 +0100
To: Damian Steer <pldms@mac.com>
Message-Id: <5C20AE5F-D80F-49B2-AFD8-1C9AE651D4D4@cyganiak.de>
Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>

On 10 May 2008, at 18:57, Damian Steer wrote:
>> 3. You should consider using hash URIs for your terms: http://purl.org/NET/biol/0.1#Taxonomy 
>>  instead of http://purl.org/NET/biol/0.1/Taxonomy. If you use slash  
>> URIs, looking up all of your 18 terms requires 38 HTTP requests,  
>> including all redirects. If you use hash URIs, it requires three.
>
> I'm not sure where the 38 requests come from. Once you look up one  
> term you end up with all 18.

No, you still have to look up all 18 identifiers.

You are right about on thing: When I look up biol:Taxonomy (with its  
current slash namespace), I will end up finding a document that  
describes biol:Taxonomy *and* the other 17 terms.

However, I don't have any way of knowing wether the descriptions of  
the 17 other terms are authoritative. After all, a term can be  
described in any number of documents on the Web, and the descriptions  
might be contradictory or outdated or false. There's only one way to  
establish what the authoritative description is: Resolve the term's  
URI and see what we find.

This means I do have to make a GET request on all the terms to learn  
that they all redirect to the same document.

(We end up with 38 requests because due to purl.org hosting there is  
an additional redirect from purl.org to Toby's domain for every  
request, which doubles the number from 19 to 38.)

> (I still vote hash, however)

I'm happy to hear that! ;-)

Richard


>
>
> Damian
>
Received on Saturday, 10 May 2008 18:34:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:22 GMT