- From: Seaborne, Andy <Andy_Seaborne@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 15:28:00 -0000
- To: SIMILE public list <www-rdf-dspace@w3.org>
Apparently I got my certificates mixed up ... resending ... -------- Original Message -------- > From: Stefano Mazzocchi <mailto:stefano@apache.org> > Date: 6 December 2003 07:04 > > On 5 Dec 2003, at 08:50, Butler, Mark wrote: > > > Hi Stefano > > Mark, > > thanks so much for taking the time to explain all this to me. > . . . lots of discussion . . . > > > > I highly recommennd against this approach. if you want URIs > > > to be long > > > lasting, you can't associate them to the semantic of retrieval or > > > you'll be stuck with it forever. > > > > > > http://whatever/category/schema/concept > > > > > > is, IMHO, much more long-lasting than anything like > > > > > > http://whatever/lookup-service?get="schema/concept" > > > > > > Concerns should be kept separate, even if this makes the job > > > a harder. > > > In my experience, keeping concerns separate *does* pay off later on, > > > resulting in a steeper curve in the beginning, but a nicer plateau > > > later. > > > > Although Joseki uses the latter, it's a simple matter to write a > > servlet so you can use the former, and then rewrite those queries and > > pass them on to Joseki, so does the distinction really matter? > > As an implementation issue, no, obviously not. I also think that > patching Joseki to do that would be so trivial to be left as an > exercise to the reader ;-) > > But from a design point of view, since you are deciding to create a > contract that, potentially, could last for a long time, I would suggest > to choose something like > > http://web.mit.edu/simile/schema[#|/|?]concept > > rather than > > http://hplb.hpl.hp.com/joseki/lookup?get="schema/concept" > > in short, choose the URI schema that is most likely to last longer. > Actually, Joseki does the former not the latter at the moment. It does not expose the service, but exposes the RDF model by URL. http://web.mit.edu/simile/schema?about=concept is more in keeping with how things are at the moment. Andy > > Also we are taking about instance data rather than schemas here, so to > > help further discussion, here are the three possibilities are > > > > i) http://whatever/collection/dataobjecttype#dataobject > > > > This is approach currently proposed. Note: the reason for including > > dataobjecttype is to generate unique URLs, rather than to place > > metadata in the URL as this would a bad thing. > > > > ii) http://whatever/collection/dataobjecttype/dataobject > > > > (Stefano's preference) > > > > iii) > > http://whatever/lookup-service?get=collection/dataobjecttype/dataobject > > > > (how you would query Joseki) > > What do other think? > > > -- > Stefano.
Received on Monday, 8 December 2003 10:30:00 UTC