W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > June 2012

Re: Decommissioning a linked data site

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 14:04:59 +0200
Message-ID: <4FCF476B.40801@few.vu.nl>
To: Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com>, "rufus.pollock@okfn.org" <rufus.pollock@okfn.org>
CC: Bradley Allen <bradley.p.allen@gmail.com>, "public-lod@w3.org community" <public-lod@w3.org>
Hi Leigh, Bradley, Rufus,


>
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Bradley Allen<bradley.p.allen@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> Leigh- This is great. The question that comes up for me out of what you've
>> written for unpublishing brings me back to Antoine's question: is it
>> appropriate to use a relation other than owl:sameAs that more specific to
>> the domain of the affected datasets being mapped, or is the nature of
>> unpublishing such that one would, as opposed to my reasoning earlier, be as
>> broad as possible in asserting equivalence, and use owlsameAs in every such
>> case?
>
> Really interesting question, and this might prompt me to revise the pattern :)
>
> So, generally, I advocate using the appropriate equivalence relation
> that relates to a specific domain. As I wrote in [1] its best to use
> the most appropriate equivalence link, as they have varying semantics.
>
> But for the unpublishing use case I think I'd personally lean towards
> *always* using owl:sameAs at least in the case where we are returning
> a 301 status code. I've previously come to the conclusion [2] that a
> 301 implies a sameAs statement. The intent seems very similar to a
> sameAs. Rewriting local links to use a new location is very similar to
> smushing descriptions in an RDF dataset such that statements only
> relate to the new URI.
>
> However I can see arguments to the effect that the new authority might
> have a slightly different definition of a resource than the original
> publisher, such that an owl:sameAs might be inappropriate. That's why
> I left the advice in the pattern slightly open ended: I think it may
> need to be evaluated on a case by case basis, but owl:sameAs seems
> like a good workable default to me.
>
> Cheers,
>
> L.
>
> [1]. http://patterns.dataincubator.org/book/equivalence-links.html
> [2]. http://www.ldodds.com/blog/2007/03/the-semantics-of-301-moved-permanently/
>


Thanks for the links--the pattern is well written!
So for now I'm still standing behind our choice for owl:sameAs. But I'll be following the list, in case new arguments arise. If ever anyone shows interest for such explicit RDF linking, in the first place!

By the way, I've tried to update our DataHub entry at http://thedatahub.org/dataset/stitch-rameau, fitting "decommissioned" somewhere. I've just added it as a tag for now, I did not know which other fields I could use.

Cheers,

Antoine
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2012 12:05:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:40 UTC