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: Ian Davis <lists@iandavis.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 10:14:15 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTimboBL8+78eNE7paNGn-sS7SLXGA_FD_ivHKxdO@mail.gmail.com>
To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Cc: nathan@webr3.org, Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr>, public-lod@w3.org
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk> wrote:
> 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.

I've done this myself but using foaf:primaryTopic and foaf:topic to
link a document URI to all the resources that are needed to render it.


>
>> The other downside of fragments is you can't say "it exists but I have
>> no description of it".
>
> <#foo> a rdfs:Resource .
>
In which case you do have a description of it :) But point taken, this
tautology would be enough.

Cheers,

Ian
Received on Sunday, 7 November 2010 10:14:48 UTC

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