W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > September 2005

RE: [WNET] RE: WordNet Conversion

From: McBride, Brian <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 08:57:18 +0100
Message-ID: <DE62D3D0BDEF184FBB5089C7D387C37425DC1B@sdcexc04.emea.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Booth, David \(HP Software - Boston\)" <dbooth@hp.com>
Cc: "Mark van Assem" <mark@cs.vu.nl>, <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) 
> Sent: 13 September 2005 17:09
> To: McBride, Brian
> Cc: Mark van Assem; public-swbp-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [WNET] RE: WordNet Conversion
> 
> > From: McBride, Brian
> > 
> > . . .
> > 2.  Naming of things
> > 
> > There are a couple of things here.  With the TAG's guidance on 
> > http-range-14, I presume that we are not free to use '/'
>                                           ^^^ Typo?  Did you 
> mean "I presume that we are *now* free to use '/'"?

Err, yes :)  thanks David.

> 
> > characters in URIs to name abstract things, provided we do an 
> > indirect.  This allows us to consult a word in a Wordnet server 
> > without downloading all of Wordnet.  I also wonder about 
> using '?' to 
> > separate the root of the URI from the concept id part.  This would 
> > avoid the redirect, but I've sneaking suspicion I've forgotten why 
> > that is a bad idea.
> 
> I believe you'll still need a 303 redirect even with the '?', 
> so I don't think the '?' would help in that respect.  My 
> understanding of the TAG's decision is that all of the URI 
> except the fragment identifier (i.e., the part after '#') is 
> transmitted in the HTTP request, and thus constitutes part of 
> the URI that the server is responding about.  If others have 
> understood this differently I'd like to know.
> 
> David Booth
> 
Received on Wednesday, 14 September 2005 07:57:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:12 UTC