RE: 301 Redirects to prevent some breakage in Linked Data

I find this discussion interesting.

Am I alone in thinking copying the URI of a term from the browser’s address bar is normal? I know I do. That’s why I think performing an HTTP redirect to the canonical URI is so important (and to also strongly reconsider using “http” as the canonical scheme). Redirects should be added for any spelling of a term to its canonical form.

I agree warnings should be given when a redirect has occurred, though. Just like on Wikipedia.

Also, to make people less likely to copy the URI from the address bar, the URI could be made clearly visible in a code-like field with a copy button next to it, perhaps? Almost like the repository URL on GitHub.

--
Asbjørn Ulsberg    -=|=-    asbjorn@ulsberg.no
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»
On 29 Apr 2020, 22:01 +0200, Tony McCreath <tony@websiteadvantage.com.au>, wrote:
> When the move was made to use https on the schema.org website I also switched to using https for my json-ld context and that broke Bing for quite a while. Because of the mixed signal with the site using https while the canonical is http, there will always be this confusion going on, and consumers would need to support both. It’s not that clear about the canonicals being http. Maybe make the canonical URL more prominent on the pages?
>
> I also find supersededBy can cause confusion, mainly because it’s not easy to spot if a property/class is marked as superseded. Example is https://schema.org/founders to https://schema.org/founder which I recently had to explain. People have to know what the presence of supersededBy means. In a sense its like a soft 301. Maybe auto add a warning to pages where they have been superseded?
>
> Similar could be done for these common case based mistakes. A simplish solution would be to detect the case is incorrect and either redirect to the correct case version or add a warning. I think the warning may be more helpful as redirects can go unnoticed.
>
> --
> Tony
>
> From: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 30 April 2020 12:56 AM
> To: schema.org Mailing List <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
> Subject: 301 Redirects to prevent some breakage in Linked Data
>
> Problem:
> "URL" versus "Url" is showing up in the wild west of our Linked Data web.
> Some properties, because of strict naming conventions we have, currently cause some breakage across the Linked Data web (but how much is anyone's guess).
>
> Solution:
> It seems there's a few Properties might be best served with a 301 Redirect ?
> https://schema.org/thumbnailURL --> https://schema.org/thumbnailUrl
> http://schema.org/contentURL --> http://schema.org/contentUrl
> http://schema.org/discussionURL --> http://schema.org/discussionUrl
> http://schema.org/downloadURL --> http://schema.org/downloadUrl
> http://schema.org/embedURL --> http://schema.org/embedUrl
> http://schema.org/installURL --> http://schema.org/installUrl
> http://schema.org/isBasedOnURL --> http://schema.org/isBasedOnUrl
> http://schema.org/paymentURL --> http://schema.org/paymentUrl
> http://schema.org/replyToURL --> http://schema.org/replyToUrl
> http://schema.org/serviceURL --> http://schema.org/serviceUrl
> http://schema.org/targetURL --> http://schema.org/targetUrl
> http://schema.org/trackingURL --> http://schema.org/trackingUrl
>
> Questions:
> 1. Could 301 Redirects be implemented for a few items on Schema.org?
>
> 2. Should 301 Redirects be implemented ?
> • Maybe this makes developers and publishers too lazy?
> • Maybe it helps consumers more, (things not breaking as often) and that's good for all?
> • How do others feel about that?
> Thad
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/