RE: [VM] citing purls in cookbook? [Re: [VM] HTTP Cookbook review - a response]

I agree with Ralph's thoughts below.  I would add that I think it is
also worth trying to work with the owners of to enable
to do 303 redirects, since is the best known PURL server.  Or
can do 303's already?  Anyone know?

David Booth

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> [] On Behalf Of Ralph R. Swick
> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 4:26 PM
> To:
> Subject: [VM] citing purls in cookbook? [Re: [VM] HTTP 
> Cookbook review - a response]
> At 05:54 PM 1/10/2006 +0100, Thomas Baker wrote:
> >On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 06:19:29PM -0500, David Booth wrote:
> >> G2.  Regarding the sentence:
> >> [[
> >> Note also that PURL servers use a 302 redirect code, and therefore 
> >> ontologies with slash namespaces using PURL servers will 
> not strictly 
> >> conform with the TAG resolution on httpRange-14 [@@TODOREF]. ]]
> >> I think it would be best to avoid giving advice that 
> violates the TAG's
> >> httpRange-14 decision[5], and as I note below, I think some of the
> >> recipes currently violate the TAG's decision.
> ...
> >The TF feels it is important to address this issue somewhere in the 
> >Cookbook, especially as purl.orgs are used by important vocabularies 
> >such as Dublin Core and RSS.
> That is the position I took during our telecon this week but 
> I am now having second thoughts.
> The reasons to talk about are
> 1. Dublin Core and RSS 1.0 use this service
> 2. To emphasize the importance in investing in namespace names
>     that can have a long lifetime
> Reason 2 is the stronger motivation for me.  I would like to 
> instill in people that when they first publish an RDF schema 
> or an OWL ontology they don't have to get the design right 
> the first time but it's really important that they choose 
> URLs that can last.  If you get someone interested in your 
> work, and writing tools that use it, making those URIs go 404 
> sometime later is quite unfriendly.
> Reason 1 is important but the audience for this cookbook is 
> supposed to be learning how to do things correctly and is not 
> necessarily going to be using either DC or RSS.  In 
> particular, I do not believe we ought to be promoting further 
> use of the service for naming RDF resources that are 
> not information resources until it has a mechanism to support 
> the 303 See Other redirect for non-information resources.
> I now think we should be emphasizing the importance of 
> persistence of URIs but without citing and that we 
> should (continue to) work with the Dublin Core and RSS owners 
> to find solutions to their needs without including that in 
> our apache configuration cookbook.

Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2006 18:15:35 UTC