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

Re: Hash vs Hashless URIs

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 00:22:24 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKaEYhK92eFFFF5aEj74iDh1kyZB1e5AP-MxXqgHXf8WYC4f1g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Cc: public-webid@w3.org
On 20 November 2012 13:03, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:

>  On 11/19/12 6:16 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
>
>
> On 19 November 2012 23:58, Kingsley Idehen <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.
>

OK, sorry for being a bit slow.  Proxy URI's do make a lot of sense.  I've
read most of your posts but if you had a pointer to refresh my memory
that'd be great.

Are there any other cases you can think of, to hand?


>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> 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 23:22:52 UTC

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