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

Re: Hash vs Slash in relation to the 303 vs 200 debate (was: Is 303 really necessary - demo)

From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 23:31:33 +0000
To: Ian Davis <lists@iandavis.com>
Cc: nathan@webr3.org, Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr>, public-lod@w3.org
Message-ID: <20101106233133.5bab2570@miranda.g5n.co.uk>
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 12:33:34 +0000
Ian Davis <lists@iandavis.com> wrote:

> On a practical level using frags can be inefficient when your linked
> data output is backed by a triple store. If you use a slash URI then
> generating the data for html/xml/turtle output is just a simple
> "describe <uri>". For hash URIs you need to describe all the resources
> with a common prefix because the fragment is not sent by the browser
> with the request. That might mean a filter with a regex or string
> functions which will be more inefficient.

Not necessarily. If you take your ex:isDescribedBy predicate and add
that to a triple store where the non-Information-Resource resources are
identified using hash URIs, then the SPARQL query is just:

	DESCRIBE <uri> ?res
	WHERE { ?res ex:isDescribedBy <uri> . }

which needn't be very slow.

> The other downside of fragments is you can't say "it exists but I have
> no description of it".

<#foo> a rdfs:Resource .

-- 
Toby A Inkster
<mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
<http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Saturday, 6 November 2010 23:32:09 UTC

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