W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > February 2011

Re: URI in a URI

From: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 16:07:19 +0000
To: "<nathan@webr3.org>" <nathan@webr3.org>
CC: Vincent Huang A <vincent.a.huang@ericsson.com>, "semantic-web@w3.org" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EMEW3|622babc29338e5755918bd4f08ae1b0cn13G7Q02hg|ecs.soton.ac.uk|1DABEEAD-57F4-46E0-8C48-C42923373A67@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

On 4 Feb 2011, at 15:41, Nathan wrote:

>> It is an important issue for the emerging services accessing the semantic web.
>> Yes in general using a # is a bad thing.
> It should be noted that the above is a personal opinion by Hugh, is certainly not consensus, and the truth of the matter is that for the purpose of naming, the lexical form of a URI is irrelevant.
Ah, thanks Nathan.
Very helpful message in general, and in particular I realise that this bit of mine was perhaps misleading.

I guess I did not mean "bad thing" :-)
What I meant was that they can cause problems in these sort of situations, so I try to avoid them where possible.
In particular, where there is a # in the name of a service, or a # in an argument to a service, then a bunch of issues can arise that make the service harder to invoke.
And then you go on the explain them - thanks!

And for the record, I don't have a problem with # URIs for Linked Data - there are very good reasons why they may sometimes be the best solution.
And yes, I am wary about terming things RESTful APIs without very careful thought - that is why I chose an example, Watson, that has nothing to do with me :-)

As you point out, one of the great things about doing this is that it is familiar to people who deal with forms; this means that these services are more likely to be accessible to non-SemWeb people.

Received on Friday, 4 February 2011 16:07:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:25 UTC