Re: .htaccess a major bottleneck to Semantic Web adoption / Was: Re: RDFa vs RDF/XML and content negotiation

2009/7/9 Juan Sequeda <>:
> On Jul 9, 2009, at 2:25 AM, Hugh Glaser <> wrote:
>> On 09/07/2009 00:38, "Toby A Inkster" <> 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://
>>>> or if they clicked upon
>>>> 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 and http://
>>> ? 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???

Does it seem reasonable to have to trawl through millions (or
billions) of RDF triples resolved from a large database that only used
one base URI with fragment identifiers for everything else if you
don't need to considering that 100 specific RDF triples in a compact
document might have been all you needed to see?


Received on Thursday, 9 July 2009 07:08:59 UTC