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 22:10:05 +0200
To: public-lod@w3.org
Message-id: <201008132210.06063.kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
On Thursday 12. August 2010 13:42:52 Leigh Dodds wrote:
> I've been wondering about this too. I've always leaned towards
> treating a 301 as an owl:sameAs statement [1]. 

Interesting!


> This could be encoded
> in the data directly instead of your ex:permanently_moved_to. But I'd
> also argue that based on the semantics of HTTP a client could
> reasonably infer that too, others disagree [2] (see cygri's comment).
> Personally I think the semantics are clear and there's nothing broken
> in a client assuming that.

Hmmmm, I may be inclined to agree that 301 + owl:sameAs together could 
reasonably be interpreted as "these resources are the same, but the one 
returning 301 is obsolete", but either alone is not sufficient to infer 
that. That puts me somewhere between you and cygri, perhaps? :-)

> Regardless, I think I'd advocate using owl:sameAs to indicate the
> change. This still provides a hook to merge data using the older URIs.

I suppose I could use it to redirect URI's for the same hostname, that may 
indeed work, though something more explicit would be nice, I think.

Cheers,

Kjetil
-- 
Kjetil Kjernsmo
kjetil@kjernsmo.net
http://www.kjetil.kjernsmo.net/
Received on Friday, 13 August 2010 20:10:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:28 UTC