Re: WNet review

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

Ok, will change that in the next version!

> Why not e.g.:
> or another example, including a wn version:

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 

> 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:

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.


  Mark F.J. van Assem - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam -

Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2006 16:44:22 UTC