W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-dspace@w3.org > December 2003

RE: ungetable http URIs

From: Seaborne, Andy <Andy_Seaborne@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 15:28:00 -0000
Message-ID: <E864E95CB35C1C46B72FEA0626A2E808712E08@0-mail-br1.hpl.hp.com>
To: SIMILE public list <www-rdf-dspace@w3.org>


Apparently I got my certificates mixed up ... resending ...

-------- Original Message --------
> From: Stefano Mazzocchi <mailto:stefano@apache.org>
> Date: 6 December 2003 07:04
> 
> On 5 Dec 2003, at 08:50, Butler, Mark wrote:
> 
> > Hi Stefano
> 
> Mark,
> 
> thanks so much for taking the time to explain all this to me.
> 

. . . lots of discussion . . .

> 
> > > I highly recommennd against this approach. if you want URIs
> > > to be long
> > > lasting, you can't associate them to the semantic of retrieval or
> > > you'll be stuck with it forever.
> > > 
> > >   http://whatever/category/schema/concept
> > > 
> > > is, IMHO, much more long-lasting than anything like
> > > 
> > >   http://whatever/lookup-service?get="schema/concept"
> > > 
> > > Concerns should be kept separate, even if this makes the job
> > > a harder.
> > > In my experience, keeping concerns separate *does* pay off later
on,
> > > resulting in a steeper curve in the beginning, but a nicer plateau
> > > later.
> > 
> > Although Joseki uses the latter, it's a simple matter to write a
> > servlet so you can use the former, and then rewrite those queries
and
> > pass them on to Joseki, so does the distinction really matter?
> 
> As an implementation issue, no, obviously not. I also think that
> patching Joseki to do that would be so trivial to be left as an
> exercise to the reader ;-)
> 
> But from a design point of view, since you are deciding to create a
> contract that, potentially, could last for a long time, I would
suggest
> to choose something like
> 
>   http://web.mit.edu/simile/schema[#|/|?]concept
> 
> rather than
> 
>   http://hplb.hpl.hp.com/joseki/lookup?get="schema/concept"
> 
> in short, choose the URI schema that is most likely to last longer.
> 


Actually, Joseki does the former not the latter at the moment.  It does
not expose the service, but exposes the RDF model by URL.

http://web.mit.edu/simile/schema?about=concept

is more in keeping with how things are at the moment.

	Andy


> > Also we are taking about instance data rather than schemas here, so
to
> > help further discussion, here are the three possibilities are
> > 
> > i) http://whatever/collection/dataobjecttype#dataobject
> > 
> > This is approach currently proposed. Note: the reason for including
> > dataobjecttype is to generate unique URLs, rather than to place
> > metadata in the URL as this would a bad thing.
> > 
> > ii) http://whatever/collection/dataobjecttype/dataobject
> > 
> > (Stefano's preference)
> > 
> > iii)
> >
http://whatever/lookup-service?get=collection/dataobjecttype/dataobject
> > 
> > (how you would query Joseki)
> 
> What do other think?
> 
> > --
> Stefano.
Received on Monday, 8 December 2003 10:30:00 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Monday, 8 December 2003 10:30:02 EST