- From: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetil@kjernsmo.net>
- Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 22:10:05 +0200
- To: public-lod@w3.org
On Thursday 12. August 2010 13:42:52 Leigh Dodds wrote: > I've been wondering about this too. I've always leaned towards > treating a 301 as an owl:sameAs statement [1]. Interesting! > This could be encoded > in the data directly instead of your ex:permanently_moved_to. But I'd > also argue that based on the semantics of HTTP a client could > reasonably infer that too, others disagree [2] (see cygri's comment). > Personally I think the semantics are clear and there's nothing broken > in a client assuming that. Hmmmm, I may be inclined to agree that 301 + owl:sameAs together could reasonably be interpreted as "these resources are the same, but the one returning 301 is obsolete", but either alone is not sufficient to infer that. That puts me somewhere between you and cygri, perhaps? :-) > Regardless, I think I'd advocate using owl:sameAs to indicate the > change. This still provides a hook to merge data using the older URIs. I suppose I could use it to redirect URI's for the same hostname, that may indeed work, though something more explicit would be nice, I think. Cheers, Kjetil -- Kjetil Kjernsmo kjetil@kjernsmo.net http://www.kjetil.kjernsmo.net/
Received on Friday, 13 August 2010 20:10:38 UTC