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

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

From: Bradley Allen <bradley.p.allen@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 15:13:42 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=EXoR_oQ=nMmgVRpyB-Q_AepbqWEeVGiC3zLOS@mail.gmail.com>
To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Cc: nathan@webr3.org, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Thanks; that's a useful example. So the convention in that case is to
append '#concept' to the end of the IR?

Bradley P. Allen
http://bradleypallen.org



On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk> wrote:
> 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 23:14:20 UTC

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