W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > March 2006

Re: [WNET] URIs as primitive queries?

From: Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 00:36:26 +0200
Message-ID: <442B0BEA.8080304@cs.vu.nl>
To: SWBPD list <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>

Hi David,

> would not be defined to mean anything (as an RDF node).  If you need a
> URI for the set of all NounWordSenses, or for the set of all WordSenses
> pertaining to the word "noun", then completely different URIs could be
> minted for those purposes.  Are they needed?

You are absolutely right that completely different URIs could be minted.
This proposal was just something that I thought would make it easier to
see the pattern of the URIs for getting sets of nodes also. It seemed
elegant. But actually the addition of the "type-" makes it less elegant
again. I agree with you; let's worry about minting the other type of URI

>> Well, I think an application should not rely on this. But in practice
>> it would probably be programmed to do so if it gets the job done. I 
>> think this is slippery terrain, but I can't decide either way.
> Well, if you're unsure, I'll be a little more forceful. :)  Don't do it!
> It is not a practice that should be encouraged or endorsed.

I wasn't saying that I myself would do it; I was just referring to the
fact that application developers, seeing this "shortcut", would probably
start using it. I agree it should not be encouraged or endorsed. But
there's no actual way in which you can prevent it and at the same time
provide human-readable URIs (because they need to have a clear structure).

> Much better!  But how about further simplifying the URIs to the
> following:
>> 	http://wordnet.princeton.edu/wn20/synset/bank/noun/1/
>> 	http://wordnet.princeton.edu/wn20/word/bank/noun/1/
>> 	http://wordnet.princeton.edu/wn20/word/bank/
>> 	http://wordnet.princeton.edu/wn20/schema/participleOf/
> This would provide even more consistency in the URIs.  Note that by
> appending "noun/1/" to the end of the word URI, you get the URI for that
> particular word sense -- the keyword "wordsense" is not needed.  

You are right that "/wordsense/" is not needed to uniquely identify the
resource. However, using "/word/" is potentially confusing to people
trying to make sense of the URIs (without having read the draft
completely). Using "/wordsense/" makes it a lot more intuitive.

Thanks for your swift replies, this is very useful!

Received on Wednesday, 29 March 2006 22:36:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:18 UTC