- From: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 13:57:40 +0000
- To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- CC: Christopher Gutteridge <cjg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "public-lod@w3.org community" <public-lod@w3.org>
On 1 Apr 2013, at 14:38, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org> wrote: > Well, the colon should be. No reason why the / should be in this case. > You can't have more than one colon in a URI. > (Though you can in what's typed in a browser bar). > > Also, the TAG is going to eliminate the // soon, which will make > everything much simpler. That's great news Tim! After all these years. The savings in time and bandwidth will be enormous. Couldn't they also drop the "tp"? Well, it has to be a Transfer Protocol after all. And any sensible Unix user knows you only need 2 letters to identify things. > > Tim > > (hmmm ...So what would be the %-encoded version of > > http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net > > ?) http://uri4uri.net/uri/http%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net Since you ask. Which is 1568 chars. Hugh > > Tim > > On 2013-04 -01, at 09:14, Martynas Jusevičius wrote: > >> Shouldn't the path component of the URIs be percent-encoded? That is, >> >> http://uri4uri.net/uri/%0Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fresource%2FCopenhagen >> >> instead of >> >> http://uri4uri.net/uri/http://dbpedia.org/resource/Copenhagen >> >> Martynas >> graphity.org >> >> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Christopher Gutteridge >> <cjg@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: >>> Well if I've understood correctly, uri4uri is an extreme version of >>> reification. rdfs: gave a way to describe a triple in triples but it still >>> related resources together, not the identifiers for those resources. That >>> makes it impossible to make statements about, say, what authority assigned >>> the URI and when. >>> >>> >>> >>> On 01/04/2013 08:49, Michael Brunnbauer wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello Chris, >>>> >>>> what a great step forward ! Now if the RDF WG would adopt this proposal, >>>> LOD and RDF would really be ready to save the world! >>>> >>>> http://www.brunni.de/extending_the_rdf_triple_model.html >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Michael Brunnbauer >>>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 12:13:19AM +0100, Christopher Gutteridge wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Apparently http://uri4uri.net/ launched today and claims to solves many >>>>> of the problems of Linked data. It looks promising.. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Christopher Gutteridge -- http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cjg >>>>> >>>>> University of Southampton Open Data Service: >>>>> http://data.southampton.ac.uk/ >>>>> You should read the ECS Web Team blog: >>>>> http://blogs.ecs.soton.ac.uk/webteam/ >>>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Christopher Gutteridge -- http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cjg >>> >>> University of Southampton Open Data Service: http://data.southampton.ac.uk/ >>> You should read the ECS Web Team blog: http://blogs.ecs.soton.ac.uk/webteam/ >>> >>> >> >> > >
Received on Monday, 1 April 2013 13:58:17 UTC