RE: VIAF contributor model

Since this is a hash URI, it won't exactly be a "dead link". An information resource will still get delivered, but your point remains. Expect an owl:sameAs to preserve the integrity of the old /#skos:Concept URI. Ugh.

(Oh what I wouldn't give for a 301 (Moved Permanently) on hash URIs. Conceptual models inevitably change and 303 URIs are SO much more adaptable. Let that be a lesson to me.)

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Antoine Isaac [mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 5:40 PM
> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
> Cc: public-lld
> Subject: Re: VIAF contributor model
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Unless someone objects, I would like to streamline the /#skos:Concept
> URI in the next VIAF release. This would affect Bernard’s example like
> so:
> >
> > <http://viaf.org/viaf/102333412>  foaf:focus
> <http://viaf.org/viaf/102333412/#foaf:Person>
> >
> > The reason is that I naively reinvented chunks of SKOS/SKOSXL in the
> VIAF ontology and I would like to reconcile them in the next ontology
> like so:
> >
> > #NameAuthorityCluster rdf:type owl:Class ;
> >
> >              rdfs:subClassOf skos:Concept .
> >
> > I’m working on a more detailed explanation as we speak. If someone
> feels strongly about preserving the /#skos:Concept URI form I could add
> an owl:sameAs to the RDF like so:
> >
> > <http://viaf.org/viaf/102333412>  owl:sameAs
> <http://viaf.org/viaf/102333412/#skos:Concept>
> >
> > I would rather pretend it never existed, though. Any opinions on
> this?
> 
> 
> It's not really good practice to have dead links. Is anyone using these
> URIs for now? If not (and I believe that if some people do, they would
> be lurking around that list) then you'd still better make that change
> really fast....
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Antoine
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2010 04:29:12 UTC