- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 09:43:21 -0400
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Misha Wolf <Misha.Wolf@reuters.com>, W3C-TAG <www-tag@w3.org>, semantic-web-ig list <semantic-web-ig.list@reuters.com>
There's a potential Semantic Web issue here. It's obvious that the permanent URI would be a reasonable subject of statement, and it the temporary one not, unless the RDF is meant for ephemeral use. If both URIs are permanent, and their meaning isn't distinguished, then both will be used interchangeably and we have a URI alias problem. -Alan On Sep 27, 2007, at 9:36 AM, Dan Connolly wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 14:00 +0100, Misha Wolf wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Which URI should be persistent when redirects are used? The one >> submitted in the initial HTTP request (having been derived, eg, >> from an XML instance document), the one obtained through the >> redirect, or both? > > Well, the more persistent URIs the better, so both. > > The question isn't very clear. > > There are distinct HTTP redirection codes for "don't use > this URI any more; use that other one from now on" (301) > and "keep using this URI, but for now, look over there > for what you're after" (302). > > http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.3 > > So if you're trying to be good about persistent URIs, > but the world changes and you have to react, putting > up a 301 for 18 months or so seems like a reasonable > strategy. > > Mark Baker and I proposed 3 years, actually, when > we wrote up something related... > http://www.markbaker.ca/2002/09/draft-connolly-w3c-accessible- > registries-00.txt > > -- > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ > > >
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2007 13:43:38 UTC