- From: Jonathan A Rees (CC) <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 08:32:51 -0400
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com>
I really appreciate your giving this correction. My mistake in imputing meaning to the nonterminal in the grammar. Will fix. Jonathan -- apologies for brevity / using handheld gizmo -- On Aug 29, 2011, at 7:47, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > Jonathan, > > in my understanding that is related to the follow-your-nose principle. If I see a URI for a, say, predicate, I may want to follow that URI and get some information. That predicate (or class or whatever) is rarely alone, it may be part of a vocabulary. > > If the URI is of the form http://blabla#blah, that means that I, typically, have a large vocabulary file at http://blabla and #blah is somewhere there. So if I dereference http://blabla#blah, I will get the full vocabulary and I will have to locate the specific element #blah to something with it (as a caller). If the vocabulary is very large, that might be a pain. > > If the URI is of the form http://blabla/blah, and I dereference it then I can expect to get only the information I am looking for. > > There may be other reasons; that is the one which resonates with me, personally... > > Cheers > > Ivan > > > On Aug 28, 2011, at 19:27 , Jonathan Rees wrote: > >> Question to the broader www-tag readership (and beyond): >> >> I don't want to start another argument, I just want to understand the >> position that it is necessary to use absolute (i.e. hashless) URIs >> instead of hash URIs for semantic web / linked data purposes, and >> record the reasons for this position somewhere. I attempted this in >> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/issue57/20110625/#hash but I feel >> the case I made against # URIs there is not convincing. >> >> That is, suppose you want a URI to use in RDF as a reference (name, >> "identifier", whatever) for something other than the web page >> (document, "information resource", whatever) at that URI. Why is it so >> important that the URI be absolute, instead of one containing # ? So >> important that the defense of this right would precipitate storms of >> email messages, many containing quite strong language? >> >> This question is at the root of the httpRange-14 / ISSUE-57 dispute, >> since if # URIs worked for everyone there would be no pressure to use >> absolute URIs, and therefore no fight about whether you can use 200 or >> are required to use 303. So I'd like to understand this better than I >> do. >> >> Please be as specific and concrete as possible. I promise to do my >> best to listen patiently, treat all reasons as legitimate, and report >> impartially. >> >> Thanks for your help, >> >> Jonathan >> > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 > PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html > FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf > > > > >
Received on Monday, 29 August 2011 12:33:23 UTC