W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > August 2011

Re: naive question: why prefer absolute URIs to # URIs for linked data?

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 17:39:17 -0400
Message-ID: <CAFKQJ8nRshyj6F6VT1LetmQPb4pqX8Tn8ps40DActWgWzi9qZA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com>
Cc: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, www-tag@w3.org
Spot on. Couldn't agree more.

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Ian Davis <me@iandavis.com> wrote:
> I think there are a number of contributing factors:
> 1) architecturally the meaning of the fragment is determined by the media
> type of the representation. Thus meaning of a hash URI depends on how you
> access it.
> 2) Fragments are not sent to the server when they are dereferenced which
> means the server has to guess what information to send. If you're storing
> data for that URI in a database you have to key it against the hashless
> version of the URI along with all other URIs that share that hashless part.
> Also the server can't log accesses to the full URI which means you don't get
> accurate analytics.
> 3) You can't use HTTP headers or status codes to refer to a hash URI. For
> example you can't 404 a hash URI or redirect it.
> 4) The role of the fragment is changing in modern web development practice.
> Its becoming a bearer of state and/or part of the interaction architecture
> of an application. See #! URLs or javascript techniques for tabbed pages.
> Ian
> On 28 Aug 2011 18:27, "Jonathan Rees" <jar@creativecommons.org> 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
Received on Wednesday, 31 August 2011 21:40:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:40 UTC