- From: Benjamin Nowack <bnowack@appmosphere.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:55:20 +0000
- To: Jeen Broekstra <jeen@aduna.biz>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, public-esw-thes@w3.org
On 16.11.2004 11:55:24, Jeen Broekstra wrote:
>
>Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>>(2) If you do think it's worth adding something to SKOS Core,
>>>what's the
>>>best idea for a local name?
>>
>>
>> Anything without a fragment identifier ;-)
>
>I realize I'm probably opening up a can of worms of the 'Holy War' brand
>here, but what exactly is the problem with using fragment identifiers?
>It seems to me that this is more a matter of esthetics/taste than
>anything else, there doesn't seem to be much of a technical difference
>between the two.
The technical problem is that using frag ids raises issues when you
have a large set of terms and then try to efficiently GET a term's URI
in order to receive a description (or if you would like to provide term
descriptions at a term's URI).
>If this has been discussed to death before, please feel free to tell me
>so and/or provide a pointer to such a discussion.
one related thread ("pound sign vs. slash as final URI delimiter")
starts at [1]
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2004Feb/0117.html
regards,
benjamin
--
Benjamin Nowack
Kruppstr. 100
45145 Essen, Germany
http://www.bnode.org/
@ DERI Galway from 2004-10-01 to 2004-12-02
http://www.deri.ie/
>
>Cheers,
>
>Jeen
Received on Tuesday, 16 November 2004 11:54:07 UTC