Re: Decommissioning a linked data site

Antoine- Thanks for the pointer to the previous discussion, which I regret
to say I had missed; the use case is almost the same and it is an approach
that yields a softer landing in those cases where people/agents have been
dependent on the resources being sunsetted. So I'm going to instead follow
your lead and have t4gm.info instead respond with a 301 redirection to the
equivalent id.loc.gov resource when that exists, else respond with a 410
error. - regards, BPA

Bradley P. Allen
http://bradleypallen.org


On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:

> But I guess that if we had decided to shut done our server altogether
>>
>
> I mean, shut down our vocabulary server, which handles the queries for
> data on individual concepts. Which would leave us with just the ability to
> serve a same answer for the entire "domain"...
>
> Antoine
>
>
>
>  Dear Bradley,
>>
>> The second part of your plan reminds me of my recent question on "moving"
>> a dataset
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-lod/2012Apr/**0123.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2012Apr/0123.html>
>>
>> The object moved (a thesaurus) is quite the same, as the cause for the
>> "moving": in both cases an official version has arisen to replace a first
>> prototype.
>>
>> We have tried to create a redirection, using a 301 code. But I guess that
>> if we had decided to shut done our server altogether, we would have opted
>> for the same 410 code as you!
>> and maybe we'll do, one day...
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Antoine
>>
>>
>>  Back in 2009, as an experiment in working with RDFa and linked data, I
>>> created t4gm.info <http://t4gm.info>. It is based solely on US Library
>>> of Congress library linked data (specifically, the Thesaurus for Graphical
>>> Materials), which at the time I created the site didn't have any
>>> equivalently accessible linked data. That has long since been rectified by
>>> the LoC. So t4gm.info <http://t4gm.info> is at best redundant and at
>>> worst potentially confusing.
>>>
>>> So what I want to do is shut the site down. But there doesn't seem to be
>>> much if any best practice around doing that, especially when the site by
>>> virtue of its listing with CKAN is part of the LOD Cloud diagram. What I
>>> want to do is 1) delist it from CKAN, and then 2) shut the site down,
>>> perhaps replacing it with a simple web service returning a 410 status code
>>> per RFC 2616. I assume it will be removed from the LOD cloud diagram when
>>> that is next updated from the CKAN data.
>>>
>>> Anyone have any suggestions beyond that? Also, if anyone from CKAN is
>>> reading this, I could also use some guidance on how deletion of records is
>>> accomplished through the online interface. - cheers, BPA
>>>
>>> Bradley P. Allen
>>> http://bradleypallen.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>