- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 13:47:37 -0500
- To: "Miles, AJ (Alistair)" <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, public-esw-thes@w3.org
* Miles, AJ (Alistair) <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk> [2004-11-16 16:58-0000] > > > > The technical problem is that using frag ids raises issues when you > > have a large set of terms and then try to efficiently GET a term's URI > > in order to receive a description (or if you would like to > > provide term > > descriptions at a term's URI). > > Just to say that, as Dave Reynolds pointed out a little while ago on > public-esw-thes list, this is not necessarily true, as you can do things > like > > http://my.org/knowlegebase/chemistry/water#concept > http://my.org/knowlegebase/chemistry/ice#concept > or > http://my.org/knowlegebase/chemistry/water#Water > http://my.org/knowlegebase/chemistry/ice#Ice > > ... see his posting at > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2004Sep/0016.html > > Not that I'm expressing any sort of opinion on whether hash or slash is best > ;) Yep, Dan C has pointed this out to me too. I still believe it is undeployably ugly in RDF's XML syntax though. For wordnet it would mean a separate xmlns declartion for each term used... Dan
Received on Tuesday, 16 November 2004 18:47:38 UTC