Re: .htaccess a major bottleneck to Semantic Web adoption / Was: Re: RDFa vs RDF/XML and content negotiation

On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Pierre-Antoine
Champin<> wrote:
> However, some people will still be concerned about naming their resources
> under a domain that is not theirs. That is not only a matter of
> URI-prettiness, but also of relying on an external service, which may cease
> to exist tomorrow.

I'm switching[1] to optionally
include accept headers in choosing a template. That should
give people a quick low-effort[2] way to get up and running
without having to warp their URIs to match a third party
service (and without having to commit to using the
service once another option is available)

It seems pretty clear that people should (a) only mint URLs
in domains the control and (b) maybe think about including a
sub-domain in the URIs for specific data sets (and thereby
get the power of the domain name system on their side
when they need to move the data later on)

Note that following (a) doesn't mean you need to run your
own server, it's sufficient to just register the domain.
Smart-ish redirectors (third party or local) will then allow
you a lot of flexibility in choosing exactly where the data
is located.


[1] Like purl o t-b-g, only with host name header
recognition so you can CNAME your own domains over and
maintain complete control over your URI, see previous email:
It's not quite fully baked, but it's getting there.

[2] You need to know what a CNAME is, and have access to
your DNS configuration. But you're not minting URLs in domains
you don't have administrative control over, are you?

Christopher St. John

Received on Thursday, 9 July 2009 18:43:02 UTC