- From: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 17:01:46 +0100
- To: Kurt J <kurtjx@gmail.com>
- Cc: music-ontology-specification-group@googlegroups.com, Linking Open Data <public-lod@w3.org>
I guess it will be as soon as we actually send them a patch :-) I did some work on that last year (just rdf/xml) but as nick said, the codebase has been changing very fast since then... We should gather efforts once the big scary release is out and make it happen! Cheers, Y On 9/6/09, Kurt J <kurtjx@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Nick, > >> It is a dilemma indeed. I think we need to make a effort to get RDF/ >> RDFa on to musicbrainz.org and then we can use the 'proper' URIs. I >> have been holding back from doing this because the codebase has been >> changing so much - but there is a big new release coming soon.... > > i like using the actual musicbrainz URIs as well. to be clear, the > artist URI would be of the form > > http://musicbrainz.org/artist/<mbid number> > > similarly the track URI would be > > http://musicbrainz.org/track/<mbid number> > > and the release (record) URI would be > > http://musicbrainz.org/release/<mbid number> > > i've noticed that currently the release-based URIs return 404 unless > you put '.html' on the end > > http://musicbrainz.org/release/3de4b060-3930-4d6f-8c4f-7135b7d70fb6 -> 404 > > http://musicbrainz.org/release/3de4b060-3930-4d6f-8c4f-7135b7d70fb6.html > -> page about this release > > track and artist URIs seem to redirect sensibly to a human-readable page. > > So do you advocate using the Musicbrainz 'proper' URIs now? Any guess > on how soon they might include RDF(a) ? > > -Kurt J > >
Received on Sunday, 6 September 2009 16:02:28 UTC