- From: Richard Light <richard@light.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 08:43:06 +0100
- 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>
In message <EMEW3|b88ea541556c1ff93cb7842c018e2d08l681Q702hg|ecs.soton.ac.uk|C21D%hg @ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk> writes >> 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. One aspect of this that puzzles me is how you do the "deliver a human-readable or machine-processible version depending on the Accept header" trick when the actual resource is a single RDF document containing hash-referenced assertions. Richard -- Richard Light
Received on Thursday, 9 July 2009 07:45:13 UTC