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

#URIs and redirections

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 11:52:12 +0100
Message-Id: <E2B071D9-9783-49EA-80AC-93CE1F4A319F@bblfish.net>
To: Jόrgen Jakobitsch <j.jakobitsch@semantic-web.at>, WebID Group <public-webid@w3.org>, nathan <nathan@webr3.org>

On 24 Nov 2012, at 00:29, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
> 
> Worth noting that a #hash IRI can 303 too...

yes, as I mentioned yesterday on the teleconf limiting oneself to hash uris 
does not remove 301 or 303s or any other HTTP code for that matter. This 
issue cannot be about disallowing redirects. 

This cuts both ways btw (as I pointed out yesterday).

Arguments that non hash URIs are required to enable server side indirection
are mistaken since one can get exactly the same freedom with #hash URIs. 
Say we hash-URIzed ( a new word !) the foaf ontology. Instead of

 - http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/knows
 - http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/mbox
 - http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person
 - http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Agent

We could use 

 - http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/knows#•
 - http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/mbox#•
 - http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person#•
 - http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Agent#•

Now imagine that Danbri still finds it useful to group
all the terms in one document at

  http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/

Then each of the documents

 - http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/knows
 - http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/mbox
 - http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person
 - http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Agent

Could now redirect to 

  http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/

And you'd get the same effect. The nice
thing is that Danbri would now have the option
of also returning the individual definitions
at the local URIs, and he would not be forced
to redirect. Instead he could put a
 
 <> rdfs:seeAlso <http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/>

in the spec.

  Mhh now I see the problem is that in the foaf
files one would have to write

@prefix foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/>

<#i> a foaf:Person#•;
     foaf:knows#• you .

Which does not make for very nice Turtle
and so presumably was why the non #• solution
was preferred . So why did Danbri not
put all those relations in the same foaf document?
Perhaps he was worried he'd end up with too big
a document in the end, so he thought he'd rather
split this out everywhere.

For proponents of hash URIs it seems then that
what is really needed is what RDFa now offers
and that is a prefix import functionality, or 
an aliasing functionality, so that somehow one could
get foaf:Person#• and foaf:knows#• to be written as
foaf:Person and foaf:knows.

Henry

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/



Received on Saturday, 24 November 2012 10:52:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:54:39 UTC