-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 5 Nov 2010, at 16:42, Nathan wrote: > Mischa Tuffield wrote: >> On 5 Nov 2010, at 15:07, Norman Gray wrote: >>> Nathan, hello. >>> >>> On 2010 Nov 5, at 14:31, Nathan wrote: >>> >>>> No, using hash URIs would certainly not mean that at all!! >>>> >>>> Use the URI pattern you wanted to use and stick #i or something at the end >>>> of each one. Hash URIs *do not* mean you put everything in one document, >>>> it simply means that you have one identifier for the doc and one for each >>>> thing described within it, whether you put 1, 10 or 100 things in the doc. >>> OoooK -- I see. Thanks for that clarification. >>> >>> When I see "the hash-URI pattern", I think of the pattern described in >>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/#hashuri>, which (as I understand it) is >>> what I was effectively describing. There, <http://example.com/about#alice> >>> is the name for alice, and that is described along with a lot of other >>> objects in the IR <http://example.com/about>. As the authors there discuss >>> it, this is better for 'small' sets of names, whereas "the slash URI >>> pattern" as described there is better for larger ones. >>> >>> The pattern you're describing (I don't know -- a hash-slash-URI?, which has >>> one IR per NIR) has a distinct sets of tradeoffs, I think, but has the >>> particular advantage that, if every NIR has a hash in it, then the IR/NIR >>> distinction can be maintained without any status code gymnastics. >> Indeed, I think I eluded to this in my email to the "303" thread. The idea >> is to have smaller more manageable RDF documents on the web, IMHO targeted >> documents are more interesting than ones which talk about a million and one >> things. Again, I will try and draw an analogy here; at is stands, sites like >> the BBC, have one document per story, there is nothing stopping the BBC from >> having one page will all of its content on it, i.e. with each article having >> its own #fragment, but it is a lot neater to have a document per story. > > I don't follow why it's inferred here that if you use a fragment then all > information must be in one document?? makes no sense. You can use exactly the > same one article per document approach with frags. Mmm, not at all. The point I was trying (and obviously failed) to make is, that if are not using #fragments because you feel that you will have a single document with way too many #fragments in it, you probably want to think about re-organising your data into more than document. Mischa > > Best, > > Nathan > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.12 (Darwin) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJM1DhJAAoJEJ7QsE5R8vfvodEP/jpYecHhz/z4JUcIz2cQGY69 ubZ3EYFVw+rgwvfwoIfmDIyJbhhCdFaTfch9/3q5MOR/ugb2CGr7aT4rPT0RtTnz wPdrZDS7VUDQAmeFDY8pJJoOYpIj2wwBWL+sRyZV26D2efGrjB2IBPGYatO4WTIZ ylgsxHv2qolWb+sReFw/5NZ1IAw0t3Qt43ajMoXxAMwjDeAlWkU7En+Vbh5gXpSv Xa26lfi4DIhCN2jizrK6kX/c9MCWr6j+lYvfciw5jM7Pum13sKxW/pNneVshNBNQ OR8okQmVxRT+LQI1sDVYbnI/mDEEZ2Dh9uPvzwEfVwn85ylRMKIETqMy+xcpMIp8 gvjlrSVNEcvGHm2t448G9H9R7Gfc184nIHXILKKniqYRDdJnnwuOioGg3CY3PGkD 2ePe7INuHPGS60DVd1DPNdbiKBC8F1GUNWQrRzLzDzrxY46XrKaIpxBePI23RbOS ZQoUbfFCk7xEMeI0gWFbx+OXuRM1kMZuJImOEnq4NSAifdmA7ifs46ig9qnj4y/Y sS+6zVhonMr4HeqPdVeUv9wSFPTBC6y6OSwN1R3h/UgFb7pV7YNwet9Nn6OH/Wom TmmkGHhzQ8NvLZSpyRf1QQH9cD7pDQd9j+V7UgZ2oWIQDgKQWBWsdEB7hQOgknca GqCzbFBgJ5m3CiheTDbd =3Kw5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
