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

Re: Migrating from slash to fragment

From: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 18:16:15 +0000
To: "nathan@webr3.org" <nathan@webr3.org>, "KangHao Lu (Kenny)" <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
CC: ML public-lod <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EMEW3|660d73c02efc40a64e57ebc67618989fm4IJGY02hg|ecs.soton.ac.uk|C819E97F.14389%hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
The CRS software (which drives sameas.org in a simplified form), always names a "canon" for this very reason.
So the owner of a domain and associated CRS can recommend a URI for use, which can be found by providing any URI.
One important point is that it provides this pseudo-authority without generating a new URI, so it doesn’t make the multiple URI problem worse.

So if you have http://dblp.rkbexplorer.com/id/people-0a36cf76d1a3e99f9267ce3d0b95e42e-083eb130820659769b083b85f3665078
then http://dblp.rkbexplorer.com/crs/export/?uri=http://dblp.rkbexplorer.com/id/people-0a36cf76d1a3e99f9267ce3d0b95e42e-083eb130820659769b083b85f3665078
tells you that the people who run dblp.rkbexplorer.com (or at least the associated CRS) would prefer you to use
http://dblp.rkbexplorer.com/id/people-0a36cf76d1a3e99f9267ce3d0b95e42e-083eb130820659769b083b85f3665078

We think that this ability to converge on agreed URIs (in a facilitative rather than authoritative way), and even support the mapping from deprecated URIs to new ones, is an important part of the LD infrastructure.

Best

On 18/05/2010 11:52, "Nathan" <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:

> KangHao Lu (Kenny) wrote:
>>
>> On 2010/05/16, at 5:00, Nathan wrote:
>>
>>> Toby Inkster wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 17:53:50 +0100
>>>> Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
>>>>> I'm wondering if there are any recommended paths for migrating RDF
>>>>> or specifically an ontology from slash to fragment URIs (?)
>>>> Cool URIs don't change.
>>
>> Indeed. But several reasons we might want a canonical way to change URIs:
>> - Slash URI requires more HTTP round trips
>> - For documents we have 301
>> - I personally don't like this owl:sameAs culture. Try to use only one
>> URI for each thing could encourage cross domain links
>>
>> TimBL uses the term http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/pim/contact# and has
>>
>> """
>> tim:i con:preferredURI "http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card#i".
>> """
>> in his FOAF.
>
> I thought the use of
> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/pim/contact#preferredURI was a rather
> nice touch tbh, noted it yesterday and have just implemented on a client
> site (because it makes a new foaf for them if they don't yet have one,
> but in the future they may get a foaf, thus i want to point to their
> preferred webid when they make their own).
>
>> I think this can be generalized and it shouldn't be con:preferredURI but
>> something like link:preferredURI.
>
> @prefix link: <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/pim/contact#> .
>
> ?
>
> can't see what difference changing the prefix makes when it'd still
> point to the same property; and if you mean make another identical
> property, then why?
>
>> For example, foaf:maker and dc:creator are considered equivalent in the
>> FOAF spec. So in the RDF ontology of FOAF, maybe there should be
>
> they're quite different, dc:creator is typically used with a string
> term, dcterms:creator is pushing towards uri's rather than literals but
> it's still a grey area, whereas foaf:maker is always a uri of a Person.
>
>> """foaf:maker link:preferredURI "http://purl.org/dc/terms/creator". """
>> in the ontology.
>
> could be something, but ontology wise I get a feeling you'd only do this
> if you'd deprecated a feature, and in that scenario possible
> dcterms:isReplacedBy would be a more suitable property?
>
> Best,
>
> Nathan
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 19 May 2010 18:17:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:27 UTC