- From: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetilk@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 17:36:27 +0100
- To: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
- Cc: SWBPD list <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Guus, Thanks for posting! On Thursday 09 February 2006 16:50, Guus Schreiber wrote: > There is a revised editor's draft of the "WordNet in RDF/OWL" > document, Just a tiny thing in the hash vs. slash discussion: http://wordnet.princeton.edu/wn#107909067-bank-n/ http://wordnet.princeton.edu/wn/107909067-bank-n/ I believe it would be customary to not use a trailing slash on the fragment identifier, so you might find it preferable to use http://wordnet.princeton.edu/wn#107909067-bank-n I fully support the use of the slash rather than the hash in this context. But was wondering why you do not use slashes as delimiters more? Why not e.g.: http://wordnet.princeton.edu/wn/107909067/bank/n/ or another example, including a wn version: http://wordnet.princeton.edu/wn/2.0/bank/noun/1/ Or perhaps you'd like a single retrievable resource for that term, it intuitively makes sense to use a fragment identifier for different meanings, so perhaps reintroduce the hash again: http://wordnet.princeton.edu/wn/2.0/bank/noun#1 Allthough I'm a big fan of decoupling the the URI from the filesystem, clearly in this case (given that it changes seldom and that there are a quite high number of terms), it would lend itself quite nice to being stored in a file system: There has however been OSes that imposes tight constraints on how many files you can have in a directory. Distributing the terms into a file hierarchy may therefore ease the serving of the resources. Also, I usually think of slashes as delimiters as prettier in URIs... But that's just aesthetics... :-) Best, Kjetil -- Kjetil Kjernsmo Information Systems Developer Opera Software ASA
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2006 16:36:45 UTC