- From: Jacco van Ossenbruggen <Jacco.van.Ossenbruggen@cwi.nl>
- Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 12:38:58 +0100
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- CC: Aldo Gangemi <aldo.gangemi@istc.cnr.it>, public-swbp-wg@w3.org, schreiber@cs.vu.nl, mark@cs.vu.nl, Benjamin.Nguyen@inria.fr
Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> How big is the file if you use hash URIs?
I'm not sure we mean the same thing by hash URIs. I was talking about
hash URIs as in http://wordnet.princeton.edu/rdf#entity versus non-hash
URIs as in http://wordnet.princeton.edu/rdf/entity. I do not see how
the difference relates to file size. BTW, the current files are using
hash URIs:
<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rdf:RDF [
<!ENTITY wn 'http://wordnet.princeton.edu/wn#'>
<!ENTITY rdf 'http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#'>
<!ENTITY rdfs 'http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#'>
]>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:wn="&wn;" xmlns:rdf="&rdf;" xmlns:rdfs="&rdfs;"
xml:lang="en">
<wn:Word rdf:about="&wn;entity"
wn:lexicalForm="entity">
<wn:sense rdf:resource="&wn;entity-n-1"/>
</wn:Word>
I do not see how you can safe space by changing the URIs.
> Isn't the size a showstopper for hashes in this application?
>
> I had always believed that this was one of the primary examples why
> hash URIs were not the only true way.
I'm missing something here. Can you elaborate on this?
Thanks, Jacco
Received on Tuesday, 13 December 2005 11:47:47 UTC