- From: Barry Norton <barry.norton@ontotext.com>
- Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 15:00:46 +0100
- To: public-lod@w3.org
That would save a LOT of typing. I haven't used ftp:// in years, maybe we could just go for : and assume it's HTTP? Barry On 01/04/2013 14:57, Hugh Glaser wrote: > 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 14:01:12 UTC