In Turtle/SPARQL my single namespace and graph name is :
If the protocol were the same that would really show those 'developers can't understand multiple namespaces guys'.
(I also find triples too complicated and just use : for the middle bit. I love graphs and all, but this stuff is really over-engineered)
Barry On 01/04/2013 15:32, Yves Raimond wrote:
In which case we can probably get rid of the ':' too? On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Barry Norton <[email protected]> wrote:That would save a LOT of typing. I haven't used ftp:// in years, maybe we could just go for : and assume it's HTTP? Barry On 01/04/2013 14:57, Hugh Glaser wrote:On 1 Apr 2013, at 14:38, Tim Berners-Lee <[email protected]> wrote:Well, the colon should be. No reason why the / should be in this case. You can't have more than one colon in a URI. (Though you can in what's typed in a browser bar). Also, the TAG is going to eliminate the // soon, which will make everything much simpler.That's great news Tim! After all these years. The savings in time and bandwidth will be enormous. Couldn't they also drop the "tp"? Well, it has to be a Transfer Protocol after all. And any sensible Unix user knows you only need 2 letters to identify things.Tim (hmmm ...So what would be the %-encoded version of http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net/uri.html/http://uri4uri.net ?)http://uri4uri.net/uri/http%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net%2Furi.html%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Furi4uri.net Since you ask. Which is 1568 chars. HughTim On 2013-04 -01, at 09:14, Martynas Jusevičius wrote:Shouldn't the path component of the URIs be percent-encoded? That is, http://uri4uri.net/uri/%0Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fresource%2FCopenhagen instead of http://uri4uri.net/uri/http://dbpedia.org/resource/Copenhagen Martynas graphity.org On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Christopher Gutteridge <[email protected]> wrote:Well if I've understood correctly, uri4uri is an extreme version of reification. rdfs: gave a way to describe a triple in triples but it still related resources together, not the identifiers for those resources. That makes it impossible to make statements about, say, what authority assigned the URI and when. On 01/04/2013 08:49, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:Hello Chris, what a great step forward ! Now if the RDF WG would adopt this proposal, LOD and RDF would really be ready to save the world! http://www.brunni.de/extending_the_rdf_triple_model.html Regards, Michael Brunnbauer On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 12:13:19AM +0100, Christopher Gutteridge wrote:Apparently http://uri4uri.net/ launched today and claims to solves many of the problems of Linked data. It looks promising.. -- Christopher Gutteridge -- http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cjg University of Southampton Open Data Service: http://data.southampton.ac.uk/ You should read the ECS Web Team blog: http://blogs.ecs.soton.ac.uk/webteam/-- Christopher Gutteridge -- http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cjg University of Southampton Open Data Service: http://data.southampton.ac.uk/ You should read the ECS Web Team blog: http://blogs.ecs.soton.ac.uk/webteam/
