RE: uri4uri.net

It’s an abomination that should be deleted and forever banned!

Aaaargh – too late 😊

From: Neubert, Joachim <J.Neubert@zbw.eu>
Sent: 21 February 2020 12:06
To: 'Christöpher Gutteridge' <totl@soton.ac.uk>
Cc: '<public-lod@w3.org>' <public-lod@w3.org>
Subject: AW: uri4uri.net

Great – thanks!

Von: Christöpher Gutteridge [mailto:totl@soton.ac.uk]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 20. Februar 2020 16:20
An: Jean-Claude Moissinac; Melvin Carvalho
Cc: <public-lod@w3.org<mailto:public-lod@w3.org>>
Betreff: Re: uri4uri.net


OK, that's enough to keep it around! Thanks.
On 20/02/2020 14:10, Jean-Claude Moissinac wrote:
+1 to renew


Le jeu. 20 févr. 2020 à 13:06, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com<mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com>> a écrit :


On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 12:47, Christöpher Gutteridge <totl@soton.ac.uk<mailto:totl@soton.ac.uk>> wrote:
For an April 1st joke in 2013 I set up this site; http://uri4uri.net/


While it was a joke, it is an interesting idea; it takes a URI and pulls
it apart and describes it in RDF. This means giving RDF identifiers to
mimetypes, file suffixes, domains and protocols etc.

However it's time to decide if I should renew the DNS for it and I
thought I'd see if the community still thinks this is an interesting
demo worth preserving. If there's any positive noise at all I'll renew
it, but maybe it's just junk now...

It's actually the best whois lookup that ive seen

Headers would be even better

The key thing i learnt about "advanced" linked data, is that RDF about a URI is different from RDF as the content.  ie data vs meta data.

A good design cleanly separates the two.  Which is surprisingly uncommon on the web.

+1 to renew


--
Christopher Gutteridge <totl@soton.ac.uk<mailto:totl@soton.ac.uk>>
You should read our team blog at http://blog.soton.ac.uk/webteam/

--

Christopher Gutteridge <totl@soton.ac.uk><mailto:totl@soton.ac.uk>

You should read our team blog at http://blog.soton.ac.uk/webteam/