W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > November 2010

Re: isDefinedBy and isDescribedBy, Tale of two missing predicates

From: Norman Gray <norman@astro.gla.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 15:07:40 +0000
Cc: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D64BCFAB-DCBE-4ED7-9628-241A0B1854BC@astro.gla.ac.uk>
To: nathan@webr3.org

Nathan, hello.

On 2010 Nov 5, at 14:31, Nathan wrote:

> No, using hash URIs would certainly not mean that at all!!
> Use the URI pattern you wanted to use and stick #i or something at the end of each one. Hash URIs *do not* mean you put everything in one document, it simply means that you have one identifier for the doc and one for each thing described within it, whether you put 1, 10 or 100 things in the doc.

OoooK -- I see.  Thanks for that clarification.

When I see "the hash-URI pattern", I think of the pattern described in <http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/#hashuri>, which (as I understand it) is what I was effectively describing.  There, <http://example.com/about#alice> is the name for alice, and that is described along with a lot of other objects in the IR <http://example.com/about>.  As the authors there discuss it, this is better for 'small' sets of names, whereas "the slash URI pattern" as described there is better for larger ones.

The pattern you're describing (I don't know -- a hash-slash-URI?, which has one IR per NIR) has a distinct sets of tradeoffs, I think, but has the particular advantage that, if every NIR has a hash in it, then the IR/NIR distinction can be maintained without any status code gymnastics.

Best wishes,


Norman Gray  :  http://nxg.me.uk
Received on Friday, 5 November 2010 15:08:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:29:51 UTC