W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > August 2007

Re: feasibility; purl.org/commons

From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:42:28 +0100
Message-ID: <46D2FEF4.40908@musc.edu>
To: Eric Jain <Eric.Jain@isb-sib.ch>
CC: samwald@gmx.at, jar@creativecommons.org, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org

Eric Jain wrote:
> samwald@gmx.at wrote:
>> I would also prefer that the file extensions are preserved, but is it
>> really such a big deal? Requiring the redirect service to fetch the ID
>> from the middle of the URI definitely makes things more complicated, and
>> it is mostly a matter of taste.
> There are good reasons for using file extensions when serving non-HTML 
> resources (prevents people from ending up with extension-less files 
> after doing a save-as, a big source of confusion, based on my 
> observations).
My guideline would be this.  If the RDF files describes itself, like an 
ontology,  never use the extension because then you can, in the future, 
to use other representation. But if the RDF file is used to describe 
another resource, such as used after a 303 redirect, extension should be 
O.K because now the URI is a file anyway.

Received on Monday, 27 August 2007 16:44:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:20:29 UTC