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

Re: Status codes / IR vs. NIR -- 303 vs. 200

From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 23:07:19 +0000
To: Bradley Allen <bradley.p.allen@gmail.com>
Cc: nathan@webr3.org, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20101110230719.70dc4ceb@miranda.g5n.co.uk>
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 12:30:35 -0800
Bradley Allen <bradley.p.allen@gmail.com> wrote:

> Nathan- I think you are overly discounting scalability problems with
> fragment URIs.
> 
> Most of the use cases I am dealing with in moving linked data into
> production at Elsevier entail SKOS concept schemes with concepts
> numbering in the 100,000's to millions, which will be constantly under
> curation, preferably using REST APIs that allow POSTs and PUTs to
> create and update individual concepts.

The Library of Congress Subject Headings consist of over a quarter of a
million SKOS concepts. They use hash URIs.

e.g.
http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85121735#concept
http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85121591#concept
http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85119315#concept
http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh86001831#concept
http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85072413#concept

-- 
Toby A Inkster
<mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
<http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2010 23:07:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:30 UTC