Re: uri for uri

In which case we can probably get rid of the ':' too?

On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Barry Norton <barry.norton@ontotext.com> wrote:
>
> 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 14:33:18 UTC