- From: John Erickson <olyerickson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 11:26:50 -0400
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Cc: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
So David's solution (using PURLs) provides a bit of transparency and manageablity, but it has the disadvantage of having no official status. Maybe (probably) I'm missing something here? On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 11:19 AM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote: > 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. > > -- John S. Erickson, Ph.D. Director, Web Science Operations Tetherless World Constellation (RPI) <http://tw.rpi.edu> <olyerickson@gmail.com> Twitter & Skype: olyerickson
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2012 15:27:23 UTC