W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > August 2011

Re: naive question: why prefer absolute URIs to # URIs for linked data?

From: Jonathan A Rees (CC) <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 08:32:51 -0400
Message-Id: <F24F7815-3EBB-473B-9D5A-DDA2E88181DD@creativecommons.org>
Cc: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
I really appreciate your giving this correction. My mistake in imputing meaning to the nonterminal in the grammar. Will fix.

Jonathan

-- apologies for brevity / using handheld gizmo --

On Aug 29, 2011, at 7:47, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

> Jonathan,
> 
> in my understanding that is related to the follow-your-nose principle. If I see a URI for a, say, predicate, I may want to follow that URI and get some information. That predicate (or class or whatever) is rarely alone, it may be part of a vocabulary.
> 
> If the URI is of the form http://blabla#blah, that means that I, typically, have a large vocabulary file at http://blabla and #blah is somewhere there. So if I dereference http://blabla#blah, I will get the full vocabulary and I will have to locate the specific element #blah to something with it (as a caller). If the vocabulary is very large, that might be a pain.
> 
> If the URI is of the form http://blabla/blah, and I dereference it then I can expect to get only the information I am looking for.
> 
> There may be other reasons; that is the one which resonates with me, personally...
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Ivan
> 
> 
> On Aug 28, 2011, at 19:27 , Jonathan Rees wrote:
> 
>> Question to the broader www-tag readership (and beyond):
>> 
>> I don't want to start another argument, I just want to understand the
>> position that it is necessary to use absolute (i.e. hashless) URIs
>> instead of hash URIs for semantic web / linked data purposes, and
>> record the reasons for this position somewhere. I attempted this in
>> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/issue57/20110625/#hash  but I feel
>> the case I made against # URIs there is not convincing.
>> 
>> That is, suppose you want a URI to use in RDF as a reference (name,
>> "identifier", whatever) for something other than the web page
>> (document, "information resource", whatever) at that URI. Why is it so
>> important that the URI be absolute, instead of one containing # ? So
>> important that the defense of this right would precipitate storms of
>> email messages, many containing quite strong language?
>> 
>> This question is at the root of the httpRange-14 / ISSUE-57 dispute,
>> since if # URIs worked for everyone there would be no pressure to use
>> absolute URIs, and therefore no fight about whether you can use 200 or
>> are required to use 303. So I'd like to understand this better than I
>> do.
>> 
>> Please be as specific and concrete as possible. I promise to do my
>> best to listen patiently, treat all reasons as legitimate, and report
>> impartially.
>> 
>> Thanks for your help,
>> 
>> Jonathan
>> 
> 
> 
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 29 August 2011 12:33:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:39 GMT