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

Re: isDefinedBy and isDescribedBy, Tale of two missing predicates

From: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 17:47:51 +0000
To: "nathan@webr3.org" <nathan@webr3.org>, Norman Gray <norman@astro.gla.ac.uk>
CC: Mischa Tuffield <mmt04r@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EMEW3|905eefae1eda639c6de0b14a7e6800a7mA4HmC02hg|ecs.soton.ac.uk|C8F9F1F1.113C8%hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Thanks - I thought as much, I think, but I was unclear.
The issue I was pondering on was whether it was being suggested that a
server could avoid sending the Gigs of data in <http://example.com/about>
when asked for one of the many hash URIs in <http://example.com/about>,
such as <http://example.com/about#alice>, but just responding with the rdf
for <http://example.com/about#alice>.
I think that the hash is stripped off, as you say, long before the server
in any case; but even of it wasn't, then things would break because of
caching of <http://example.com/about>, etc..
This was all in relation to whether hash URIs are a problem for big files,
but that has long gone in the stream of emails now, I guess :-)
Best

On 05/11/2010 17:33, "Nathan" <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:

>Hi Norman,
>
>Norman Gray wrote:
>>> 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
>> 
>> ...the <http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/#hashuri> example of the
>><http://example.com/about#alice> identifier implies that the
>><http://example.com/about> document must contain information about both
>>the #alice and #bob fragments, because there's no way that the server
>>can tell the difference between the two (since it never sees the
>>fragment), and so it must provide the same document in both cases.
>> 
>> A variant of this is the one-identifier-per-document one that you're
>>describing (if I understand you correctly).  You certainly can use the
>>pattern <http://example.com/about/alice#alice>, and here the
>>per-identifier document <http://example.com/about/alice> is an IR and
>>the identifiers <http://example.com/about/alice#alice> or
>><http://example.com/about/alice#i> are not.
>> 
>> I can see the advantages of this latter "slash-hash-URI" scheme, but
>>I'm fairly confident it's distinct from what Leo and Richard are
>>describing as their "hash-URI" scheme.  If their "hash-URI" scheme is
>>intended to cover your scheme, too, then the cooluris document may need
>>a little clarification.
>
>Hmm, I don't see a distinction between the patterns to be honest,
>Richard / Leo can verify if they are distinct, personally think it could
>be better clarified to use a few different uris, some where it's one
>resource per doc, some with more than one.
>
>   <http://example.com/alice#me>
>   <http://example.com/about#bob>
>   <http://example.com/about#frank>
>
>for instance, or something even clearer.
>
>Best,
>
>Nathan
Received on Friday, 5 November 2010 17:49:36 UTC

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