Re: Migrating from slash to fragment

The CRS software (which drives in a simplified form), always names a "canon" for this very reason.
So the owner of a domain and associated CRS can recommend a URI for use, which can be found by providing any URI.
One important point is that it provides this pseudo-authority without generating a new URI, so it doesn’t make the multiple URI problem worse.

So if you have
tells you that the people who run (or at least the associated CRS) would prefer you to use

We think that this ability to converge on agreed URIs (in a facilitative rather than authoritative way), and even support the mapping from deprecated URIs to new ones, is an important part of the LD infrastructure.


On 18/05/2010 11:52, "Nathan" <> wrote:

> KangHao Lu (Kenny) wrote:
>> On 2010/05/16, at 5:00, Nathan wrote:
>>> Toby Inkster wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 17:53:50 +0100
>>>> Nathan <> wrote:
>>>>> I'm wondering if there are any recommended paths for migrating RDF
>>>>> or specifically an ontology from slash to fragment URIs (?)
>>>> Cool URIs don't change.
>> Indeed. But several reasons we might want a canonical way to change URIs:
>> - Slash URI requires more HTTP round trips
>> - For documents we have 301
>> - I personally don't like this owl:sameAs culture. Try to use only one
>> URI for each thing could encourage cross domain links
>> TimBL uses the term and has
>> """
>> tim:i con:preferredURI "".
>> """
>> in his FOAF.
> I thought the use of
> was a rather
> nice touch tbh, noted it yesterday and have just implemented on a client
> site (because it makes a new foaf for them if they don't yet have one,
> but in the future they may get a foaf, thus i want to point to their
> preferred webid when they make their own).
>> I think this can be generalized and it shouldn't be con:preferredURI but
>> something like link:preferredURI.
> @prefix link: <> .
> ?
> can't see what difference changing the prefix makes when it'd still
> point to the same property; and if you mean make another identical
> property, then why?
>> For example, foaf:maker and dc:creator are considered equivalent in the
>> FOAF spec. So in the RDF ontology of FOAF, maybe there should be
> they're quite different, dc:creator is typically used with a string
> term, dcterms:creator is pushing towards uri's rather than literals but
> it's still a grey area, whereas foaf:maker is always a uri of a Person.
>> """foaf:maker link:preferredURI "". """
>> in the ontology.
> could be something, but ontology wise I get a feeling you'd only do this
> if you'd deprecated a feature, and in that scenario possible
> dcterms:isReplacedBy would be a more suitable property?
> Best,
> Nathan

Received on Wednesday, 19 May 2010 18:17:13 UTC