W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > November 2017

Re: tr.rdf doesn't include versionless URLs consistently

From: Denis Ah-Kang <denis@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 14:21:14 +0400
To: Geoffrey Sneddon <me@gsnedders.com>
Cc: www-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <250c5f30-a214-e1a4-329d-71085f3655e6@w3.org>
Hi Geoffrey,

On 11/21/2017 08:26 PM, Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
> Denis—I hope you're the right person to contact about this; if not,
> please forward it on!
> 
> For example, we have in tr.rdf:
> 
> @prefix doc: <http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/pim/doc#> .
> @prefix rec53: <http://www.w3.org/2001/02pd/rec54#> .
> 
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-webrtc-20170605/>
>   doc:versionOf <https://www.w3.org/TR/webrtc/>
> .
> 
> But we don't have:
> 
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2016/CR-css-flexbox-1-20160526/>
>   doc:versionOf <http://www.w3.org/TR/css-flexbox/>
> .

Yes, that's true but instead you have
doc:versionOf <http://www.w3.org/TR/css-flexbox-1/>

> 
> Given loading <https://www.w3.org/TR/css-flexbox/> gives the same
> resource as <http://www.w3.org/TR/2016/CR-css-flexbox-1-20160526/>, I'd
> have expected it to have appeared in  tr.rdf. (Indeed, I'd expect all
> current resolvable URLs in /TR/ to appear in tr.rdf. And ideally we'd
> have some historic archive of all resolvable URLs in /TR/ somewhere.)

These data are extracted at the time of the publication. The `versionOf`
represents the latest version url in the document.
Right now, that's how it's done and as you probably know, we introduced
a couple of links a few weeks ago [1]. The goal is to harmonize these
links for all the specifications with different levels.
During TPAC, PLH discussed with a couple of people about what we should
do with these links and how they should appear in the specs. He started
showing a mockup to see what people thinks [2].
You'll notice the mockup display the canonical link without the level.

So in the future, we may add all these links to tr.rdf but for now
it's still being reviewed.

[1]
https://github.com/w3c/tr-pages/wiki/Latest-versions-proposal-for-leveled-specifications
[2] https://www.w3.org/2017/11/versions-proposal.html


> 
> Note we also don't have:
> 
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2016/CR-css-flexbox-1-20160526/>
>   rec54:sameWorkAs <https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/CR-css-flexbox-1-20160526/>
> .
> 
> And I'd expect that given nowadays it redirects to it (at least if the
> client sends Upgrade-Insecure-Requests: 1).

True as well. These http->https triples are available only for
shortlinks (http://www.w3.org/TR/foobar/).
The reason is when we upgraded /TR with https, the semweb people wanted
to make sure we don't break the existing URIs so they could follow the
history of a spec just from the shortlink so to avoid breaking things,
we added these relations but that use case doesn't apply for dated
links.
Although it is true that we could add these triples for dated links,
it will increase the size of tr.rdf significantly so unless there's a
good use case, I don't think we should add them.

Denis
Received on Wednesday, 22 November 2017 10:21:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:35:51 UTC