Re: Status codes / IR vs. NIR -- 303 vs. 200

Toby- A quick correction: in the previous email, by "end of the IR" I
meant to say "end of the IR's URI."

I note also that the LC's Thesaurus of Graphic Materials uses slash
URIs instead of hash URIs.

e.g.

http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/graphicMaterials/tgm003862
http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/graphicMaterials/tgm000013
http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/graphicMaterials/tgm002276
http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/graphicMaterials/tgm004048
http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/graphicMaterials/tgm005114

I'm curious as to why the LC would use two different schemes in this regard.

Bradley P. Allen
http://bradleypallen.org



On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Bradley Allen
<bradley.p.allen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks; that's a useful example. So the convention in that case is to
> append '#concept' to the end of the IR?
>
> Bradley P. Allen
> http://bradleypallen.org
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 12:30:35 -0800
>> Bradley Allen <bradley.p.allen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Nathan- I think you are overly discounting scalability problems with
>>> fragment URIs.
>>>
>>> Most of the use cases I am dealing with in moving linked data into
>>> production at Elsevier entail SKOS concept schemes with concepts
>>> numbering in the 100,000's to millions, which will be constantly under
>>> curation, preferably using REST APIs that allow POSTs and PUTs to
>>> create and update individual concepts.
>>
>> The Library of Congress Subject Headings consist of over a quarter of a
>> million SKOS concepts. They use hash URIs.
>>
>> e.g.
>> http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85121735#concept
>> http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85121591#concept
>> http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85119315#concept
>> http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh86001831#concept
>> http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85072413#concept
>>
>> --
>> Toby A Inkster
>> <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
>> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
>>
>

Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2010 23:26:14 UTC