W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > August 2011

Re: Fwd: Re: Document fragment vocabulary

From: Sebastian Hellmann <hellmann@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 01:36:05 +0900
Message-ID: <4E4A9C75.6010401@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
To: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
CC: uri@w3.org
Hello Erik,
(I liked, how you separated the topics...)

Am 16.08.2011 20:49, schrieb Erik Wilde:
> hello sebastian.
>
>> Another problem, we have is that the fragment id is not sent to the
>> server. Did this ever play a practical role up to now? For Linked Data
>> it can be cumbersome: Let's say you have a 200 MB text file, with
>> average 3 annotations per line (200,000 lines, 600,000 triples ).
>> Somebody attached an annotation on line 20000:
>> <http://example.com/text.txt#line=20000> my:comment "Please remove this
>> line. It is so negative!" .
>> When making a query with RDF/XML Accept Header. You would always need to
>> retrieve all annotations for all lines.
>> Then after transferring the 900k triples, the client would throw away
>> all other triples, except the one for this line.
>
> the fact that fragment identifiers are client-side only is something 
> that it pretty deeply engrained in web architecture. interactions on 
> the web are based on resources, and if you're unhappy with interaction 
> granularity (as you're indicating above), then this does not 
> necessarily mean that you have to change web architecture, but instead 
> that you may have a problem with your resource model. if you want 
> interactions to be finer grained, then identify and build interactions 
> around those finer-grained resources. linking can help you to find 
> links from coarse-grained to fine-grained and vice versa, if you model 
> it in a way where there are possible interactions with both finer and 
> more coarsely grained resources.
The problem is not with our modelling. We are working on a format for 
NLP tools, that everyone can then implement. So the modelling should be 
up to the developer. I think the core of the problem is, that the uris 
should serve to use cases: 1. serve as RDF subjects and allow for 
LinkedData without too much overhead 2. highlight it in a browser/client
We might assume equality of both and just allow in the NIF format[1], 
that developers can use both as they like, but then when querying 
LinkedData they should replace all # with ? and vice versa for 
browser/highlighting clients.

Would you think this is too hacky? It might also be that the whole 
problem is rather hypothetical at the moment, so # might be the choice 
now and then we will just wait until the problems arise...

Thanks,
Sebastian

[1] http://aksw.org/Projects/NIF


-- 
Dipl. Inf. Sebastian Hellmann
Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig
Homepage: http://bis.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/SebastianHellmann
Research Group: http://aksw.org
Received on Tuesday, 16 August 2011 16:36:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:15 UTC