Re: uri for uri

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