- From: Kurt J <kurtjx@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 14:24:20 +0100
- To: music-ontology-specification-group@googlegroups.com
- Cc: Linking Open Data <public-lod@w3.org>
Hi Nick, > It is a dilemma indeed. I think we need to make a effort to get RDF/ > RDFa on to musicbrainz.org and then we can use the 'proper' URIs. I > have been holding back from doing this because the codebase has been > changing so much - but there is a big new release coming soon.... i like using the actual musicbrainz URIs as well. to be clear, the artist URI would be of the form http://musicbrainz.org/artist/<mbid number> similarly the track URI would be http://musicbrainz.org/track/<mbid number> and the release (record) URI would be http://musicbrainz.org/release/<mbid number> i've noticed that currently the release-based URIs return 404 unless you put '.html' on the end http://musicbrainz.org/release/3de4b060-3930-4d6f-8c4f-7135b7d70fb6 -> 404 http://musicbrainz.org/release/3de4b060-3930-4d6f-8c4f-7135b7d70fb6.html -> page about this release track and artist URIs seem to redirect sensibly to a human-readable page. So do you advocate using the Musicbrainz 'proper' URIs now? Any guess on how soon they might include RDF(a) ? -Kurt J
Received on Sunday, 6 September 2009 13:24:56 UTC