W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2004

Re: Human-Opaque URIs

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 23:39:29 -0500 (EST)
To: Phil Dawes <pdawes@users.sourceforge.net>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.55.0404022308130.12437@homer.w3.org>

Hi Phil,

I have been considering using words in arabic and hebrew to represent things
for the same reasons (and also to encourage me to look for systems that
understand basic parts of RDF like rdfs:label and rdfs:comment rather than
trying to read some almost-sensible name clobbered together to fit URI
rules).

In general I have given up on the idea of humann-readable URIs - there is
often something in the URI that makes sense when I write it the first time,
but I assume that the sense will rot away. Living with this assumption makes
my life a lot easier, I discovered (having resisted it for some time).

cheers

Chaals

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004, Phil Dawes wrote:

>
>Hi All,
>
>We've been using meaningfully-named URIs at work for a while, and
>after 9 months I'm finding them difficult to keep totally persistent.
[snip]
>The main problem isn't with the URIs themselves, but with the fact
>that we've got into the habit of expecting to be able to read them
>ourselves. When the URI text doesn't correspond to the 'thing'
>anymore, it niggles.
>
>I'm now considering using opaque numbers in URIs to represent things -
>e.g. http://sw.example.com/2003/01/application/23 - and am wondering if
>other people do this and what their experiences are.
Received on Friday, 2 April 2004 23:40:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:06 GMT