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

Re: isDefinedBy and isDescribedBy, Tale of two missing predicates

From: Mischa Tuffield <mmt04r@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 17:00:53 +0000
Cc: Norman Gray <norman@astro.gla.ac.uk>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EMEW3|5ae04f20a7a464122c8a1b55b3782e02mA4H1506mmt04r|ecs.soton.ac.uk|5FA5B5B1-C5CE-4B93-96F6-D26865C97D08@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: nathan@webr3.org
Hash: SHA1

On 5 Nov 2010, at 16:42, Nathan wrote:

> Mischa Tuffield wrote:
>> On 5 Nov 2010, at 15:07, Norman Gray wrote:
>>> 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.
>> Indeed, I think I eluded to this in my email to the "303" thread. The idea is to have smaller more manageable RDF documents on the web, IMHO targeted documents are more interesting than ones which talk about a million and one things. Again, I will try and draw an analogy here; at is stands, sites like the BBC, have one document per story, there is nothing stopping the BBC from having one page will all of its content on it, i.e. with each article having its own #fragment, but it is a lot neater to have a document per story. 
> I don't follow why it's inferred here that if you use a fragment then all information must be in one document?? makes no sense. You can use exactly the same one article per document approach with frags.

Mmm, not at all. The point I was trying (and obviously failed) to make is, that if are not using #fragments because you feel that you will have a single document with way too many #fragments in it, you probably want to think about re-organising your data into more than document. 


> Best,
> Nathan

Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.12 (Darwin)

Received on Friday, 5 November 2010 17:02:31 UTC

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