- From: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 17:11:39 +0000
- To: "nathan@webr3.org" <nathan@webr3.org>, Mischa Tuffield <mmt04r@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- CC: Norman Gray <norman@astro.gla.ac.uk>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Seems a good point to ask for some help my understanding. I would guess I am about to display great ignorance here, but... :-) My understanding of <http://example.com/about#alice> is that the sub-application libraries (woolly terms, to include caches, etc.!) will (must) fetch <http://example.com/about> as a page, and then do something about the alice frag. Later, if I ask for <http://example.com/about#bob>, and expiry etc. was not set aggressively, then there is a distinct possibility that the page will not be re-fetched, but just hand back the "version: of <http://example.com/about> that the server chose to return in response to the <http://example.com/about#alice> request. So if I have loads of frags in <http://example.com/about>, then if I don't give them all every time, the consuming app can legitimately find that the others, such as <http://example.com/about#bob> are not there? Sorry if this is a question that everyone already knows the answer to. Cheers Hugh On 05/11/2010 16:42, "Nathan" <nathan@webr3.org> 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. > >Best, > >Nathan >
Received on Friday, 5 November 2010 17:13:33 UTC