W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webid@w3.org > November 2012

Re: Hash vs Hashless URIs

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 07:03:09 -0500
Message-ID: <50AB717D.4040509@openlinksw.com>
To: public-webid@w3.org
On 11/19/12 6:16 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
>
> On 19 November 2012 23:58, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com 
> <mailto:kidehen@openlinksw.com>> wrote:
>
>     All,
>
>     To understand this old problem please read:
>     http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-cooluris-20071217/#hashuri .
>
>     Important point to note, this matter ultimately becomes a
>     permathread whenever a spec attempts to pick one style over the other.
>
>     The solution to these kinds of problems stem back to biblical
>     stories, such as the one illustrating the wisdom of Solomon re.
>     splitting a disputed baby in half.
>
>     HTTP URIs are "horses for course" compliant. It is always best to
>     keep them that way when designing specs for HTTP based solutions.
>
>
> Thanks
>
> "Conclusion.
>     Hash URIs should be preferred for rather small and stable sets of
>     resources that evolve together. An ideal case are RDF Schema
>     vocabularies and OWL ontologies, where the terms are often used
>     together, and the number of terms is unlikely to grow much in the
>     future.
>
>     Hash URIs without content negotiation can be implemented by simply
>     uploading static RDF files to a Web server, without any special
>     server configuration. This makes them popular for quick-and-dirty
>     RDF publication.
>
>     303 URIs should be used for large sets of data that are, or may
>     grow, beyond the point where it is practical to serve all related
>     resources in a single document.
>
>     If in doubt, it's better to use the more flexible 303 URI approach.
>
> "
>
> Will try and digest this a bit more.  I may still be missing something 
> but if you have a paradigm of one data item per page and call it #, 
> like facebook do, I'm still trying to see the advantage of 303s.  As 
> pointed out, facebook is not a small data set.
>

The definition of a WebID shouldn't be based on implementation details 
re. style of HTTP URI. Secondly, I already gave you an example of proxy 
URIs based on 303 redirection. The ability to produce 5-Star Linked Data 
for specific purposes without waiting for Facebook. Example, how we 
enable any Facebook user acquire a WebID that resolves to a profile 
graph that's usable with the WebID over TLS protocol re. authentication.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen





Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2012 12:03:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:05:45 UTC