W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > August 2010

Re: Best practice for permantently moved resources?

From: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 22:03:14 +0200
To: public-lod@w3.org
Message-id: <201008132203.15137.kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
On Thursday 12. August 2010 13:35:28 John Erickson wrote:
> I realize this is a dangerous question, but...what is the cause of the
> change?

Oh, it is good and interesting question, but one that I cannot answer, and 
my solution has to be so generic it isn't relevant.

The problem is that I cannot know why editors decide to rename or move a 
URI (which in this case identifies a skos:Concept). It is certainly not 
done at minor revisions, but the latest example is that they moved 
</data_og_kommunikasjon/> to </it_og_mobil/> (no translation necessary, I 
hope), presumably simply because they felt that the former no longer felt 
relevant to user's as a top-level category (arguably, that's a problem with 
the relatively rigid taxonomy we have, but that's not a problem I can solve 

> This brings to mind a number of conversations I've had in the
> DOI/Handle System alternate reality, in which we've discussed a
> vocabulary of types (think: predicates) that could serve as hints to a
> HS proxy on what "physical" URI to return to a resolution request,
> including and especially as a "smart" way to handle conneg. Not only
> could these type assertions help the proxy distinguish between data
> vs. document, but it could nicely handle version ala Memento
> <http://mementoweb.org/>

Interesting perspective, but I'm not sure if it is relevant to me, as what 
I do now is to export an ontology that has evolved over 15 years. It should 
probably be redesigned, but there is value in that legacy too :-)


Kjetil Kjernsmo
Received on Friday, 13 August 2010 20:03:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:08 UTC