- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 11:19:30 -0400
- To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Cc: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
Okay, then maybe a PURL would help? purl.org now supports "partial redirects": http://purl.org/docs/faq.html#toc1.9 That may not quite work with your ISO URIs though. Personally, I don't think you should worry too much about a machine expecting to be able to dereference the datatype URI to get data back. I would expect most datatype URIs would lead to human-oriented information, though that could gradually change. David On Tue, 2012-04-03 at 15:58 +0100, Phil Archer wrote: > Hi David, > > Yes, one could use URL shorteners and that's probably the only sane way > to go but it's still not ideal because: > > 1. Both Bitly and Tinyurl come with "no guarantee of service" (and a > lot of tracking) - Google's goo.gl is all wrapped up with their services > too - not the kind of thing public administrations will be happy about > using. Yves Lafon's http://kwz.me is a pure shortener with no tracking > of any kind but it's a one man project so, again, it won't be 'good > enough' for public sector data. > > 2. Neither a shortened URL nor the long form tell a human reader a lot > whereas something (non-standard I know) like urn:iso/iec:5218:2004 tells > you that it's an ISO standard that a human can look up. The ISO > catalogue URLs point to Web pages or PDFs available from those Web pages > so you still need to be a human to get the information. The danger would > be that a machine would look up the datatype URI and expect to get data > back, not ISO's paywall :-) > > So, not ideal, but still the best (practical) solution? > > > > On 03/04/2012 15:38, David Booth wrote: > > On Tue, 2012-04-03 at 14:33 +0100, Phil Archer wrote: > >> [ . . . ] The actual URI for it is > >> http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=36266 > >> (or rather, that's the page about the spec but that's a side issue for > >> now). > >> > >> That URI is just horrible and certainly not a 'cool URI'. The Eurostat > >> one is no better. > >> > >> Does the datatype URI have to resolve to anything (in theory no, but in > >> practice? Would a URN be appropriate? > > > > It's helpful to be able to click on the URI to figure out what exactly > > was meant. How about just using a URI shortener, such as tinyurl.com or > > bit.ly? > > > > > -- David Booth, Ph.D. http://dbooth.org/ Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of his employer.
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2012 15:20:00 UTC