- 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>
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