Re: Question about identifiers

So perhaps best practice is to update the resource at the old URI to point
to the new one ?

Ed


On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 at 11:03 Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:

> On 19 August 2016 at 11:11, Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl
> > wrote:
>
>> Yes…  it is generally easier to make meaningless IDs persistent. But it
>> is nice to have URIs that are human readable. In the Dutch URI strategy we
>> do advise having human-readable parts in the URI scheme, but say that
>> officially these mean nothing i.e. we say it is extremely ill-advised to
>> ascribe any meaning to {concept} **for the machine**. URIs are opaque in
>> a technical sense. Meanwhile, however, they do give hints to human readers.
>>
>
> Then how can you tell humans that they can interpret the URI and tell
> machines that they should not? Is there a mechanism for doing that?
>
> Greetings,
> Frans
>
>
>>
>>
>> *Van:* Ed Parsons [mailto:eparsons@google.com]
>> *Verzonden:* vrijdag 19 augustus 2016 11:02
>> *Aan:* Frans Knibbe; SDW WG (public-sdw-wg@w3.org)
>> *CC:* Linda van den Brink; Joshua Lieberman (jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com);
>> Byron Cochrane
>> *Onderwerp:* Re: Question about identifiers
>>
>>
>>
>> While I accept that the current view of URI schemes having no explicit
>> meaning, I do see great value in the
>> /{municipality}/{quarter}/{neighbourhood} as a simple way of
>> expressing geographical hierarchy independent of geometry... What's the
>> worst that could happen ?
>>
>>
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 at 09:30 Frans Knibbe <frans.knibbe@geodan.nl> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> A prime requirement of good URI minting is to not put any meaning in the
>> URI, at least no meaning that is somehow intended for consumers. Everything
>> that needs to be said about a resource, like its membership of data
>> collections or its versioning, can be said in the data that is returned
>> when the URI is dereferenced.
>>
>>
>>
>> URI schemes like /{municipality}/{quarter}/{neighbourhood} could be
>> dangerous, because consumers could inadvertently try to derive meaning from
>> such an URI. The usefulness of such a scheme in URI minting is also
>> doubtful, because administrative structure can change in time. That could
>> complicate the URI minting procedures over time.
>>
>>
>>
>> I do wonder to what extent common web crawlers try to parse URIs and
>> attach meaning to URI parts.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Frans
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 18 August 2016 at 22:55, Byron Cochrane <bcochrane@linz.govt.nz>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I like the guidance under the URI-Strategy under Hierarchical URIs
>> generally, but have some reservations to this intelligent identifiers
>> approach.
>> For metadata access I think it is a good thing.  Most metadata for an
>> individual features will usually reside at the dataset or collection
>> (better term) level.  This hierarchical approach makes this metadata easy
>> to access.
>>
>> But this built in intelligence makes the permanence of the URIs more
>> difficult.  For example, administrative boundaries change through mergers
>> and annexations.  A spatial thing that was in one collection is now in
>> another.  The URIs for these things then confuse more than help.  URI
>> redirects are one way to deal with this, but perhaps tracking these
>> relationships through applied ontologies such as skos:broader and
>> skos:narrower is the better practice?
>>
>> No answers from me here, just questions.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Byron
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Linda van den Brink [l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl]
>> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 8:28 PM
>> To: Joshua Lieberman (jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com)
>> Cc: SDW WG (public-sdw-wg@w3.org)
>> Subject: Question about identifiers
>>
>> Hi Josh,
>>
>> Coming back to the telecon yesterday:
>>
>>
>> <joshlieberman> Should identifiers be part of a system for the features
>> of interest?
>>
>> joshlieberman: making identifiers part of a system, where the features
>> are part of the system?
>> ... for example corresponding to paths in a taxonomy
>>
>> Linda: no answer right now, will have to think about it
>>
>> Were you talking about recommending some system for creating HTTP URI
>> identifiers, i.e. some sort of URI strategy or pattern? Specifically where
>> the features can be organised into some system like a hierarchy, as with
>> administrative regions? There are some examples from Geonovums testbed here
>> https://github.com/geo4web-testbed/topic3/wiki/URI-Strategy under
>> Hierarchical URIs.
>>
>> Just trying to understand what you mean… we could add some guidance to
>> the BP about this. I think that would be helpful.
>>
>> Linda
>>
>> ______________________________________
>> Geonovum
>> Linda van den Brink
>> Adviseur Geo-standaarden
>>
>> a: Barchman Wuytierslaan 10, 3818 LH Amersfoort
>> p: Postbus 508, 3800 AM Amersfoort
>> t:  + 31 (0)33 46041 00
>> m: + 31 (0)6 1355 57 92
>> e:  l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl<mailto:r.beltman@geonovum.nl>
>> i:  www.geonovum.nl<http://www.geonovum.nl/>
>> tw: @brinkwoman
>>
>> This message contains information, which may be in confidence and may be
>> subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you must
>> not peruse, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message. If you have
>> received this message in error, please notify us immediately (Phone 0800
>> 665 463 or info@linz.govt.nz) and destroy the original message. LINZ
>> accepts no responsibility for changes to this email, or for any
>> attachments, after its transmission from LINZ. Thank You.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> *Ed Parsons *FRGS
>> Geospatial Technologist, Google
>>
>> Google Voice +44 (0)20 7881 4501
>> www.edparsons.com @edparsons
>>
> --

*Ed Parsons *FRGS
Geospatial Technologist, Google

Google Voice +44 (0)20 7881 4501
www.edparsons.com @edparsons