- From: Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 08:44:54 +0200
- To: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Cc: Toby A Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Seth Russell <russell.seth@gmail.com>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
On Jul 9, 2009, at 2:25 AM, Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > On 09/07/2009 00:38, "Toby A Inkster" <tai@g5n.co.uk> wrote: > >> On 8 Jul 2009, at 19:58, Seth Russell wrote: >> >>> Is it not true that everything past the hash (#alice) is not >>> transmitted back to the server when a browser clicks on a >>> hyperlink ? If that is true, then the server would not be able to >>> serve anything different if a browser clicked upon http:// >>> example.com/foaf.rdf or if they clicked upon http://example.com/ >>> foaf.rdf#alice . >> >> Indeed - the server doesn't see the fragment. >> >>> If that is true, and it probably isn't, then is not the Semantic >>> Web crippled from using that techniqe to distinguish between >>> resources and at the same time hyper linking between those >>> different resources? >> >> >> Not at all. >> >> Is the web of documents crippled because the server can't distinguish >> between requests for http://example.com/document.html and http:// >> example.com/document.html#part2 ? Of course it isn't - the server >> doesn't need to distinguish between them - it serves up the same web >> page either way and lets the user agent distinguish. >> >> Hash URIs are very valuable in linked data, precisely *because* they >> can't be directly requested from a server - they allow us to bypass >> the whole HTTP 303 issue. > Mind you, it does mean that you should make sure that you don't put > too many > LD URIs in one document. > If dbpedia decided to represent all the RDF in one document, and > then use > hash URIs, it would be somewhat problematic. Could you explain why??? >> >> -- >> Toby A Inkster >> <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> >> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk> >> >> >> > >
Received on Thursday, 9 July 2009 06:45:55 UTC