Hi Kjetill, > 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 Ok, will change that in the next version! > 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/ I personally feel that the currently proposed scheme is more clear because it typographically separates the "local ID" from the "namespace" part of the URI, which helps humans to read the URIs. Is this way of composing slash URIs considered counter-intuitive by most people? > 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 If I'm not mistaken that would partially re-introduce the problem we're trying to circumvent by not using hashes at all: all the different noun senses of bank would be returned on an HTTP GET, not just #1. The benefit of the current proposal is that you can ask for both a specific WordSense (bank-noun-1) or a set of senses (query for NounWordSense which have a Word with wn:lexicalForm "bank"). The former query is not possible with the hash URIs. Cheers, Mark. -- Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam markREMOVE@cs.vu.nl - http://www.cs.vu.nl/~markReceived on Wednesday, 22 February 2006 16:44:22 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 27 January 2023 01:58:26 UTC