Nate's point is what I was thinking about in this comment in my
original reply:
If you don't add DC metadata, which seems like a good idea, you'll
definitely want to include something that will help you to persist
your replacement record. For example, a label or description for the
link.
I should also point out a solution that could work for some people but
not you- put rewrite rules in the gateways serving your network. A bit
dangerous and kludgy, but we've seen kludgier things.
On Sep 14, 2009, at 4:24 PM, O.Stephens wrote:
Nate has a point here - what if we end up with a commonly used URI
pointing at a variety of different things over time, and so is used
to indicate different content each time. However the problem with a
'short URL' solution (tr.im, purl etc), or indeed any locally
assigned identifier that acts as a key, is that as described in the
blog post you need prior knowledge of the short URL/identifier to
use it. The only 'identifier' our authors know for a website is it's
URL - and it seems contrary for us to ask them to use something
else. I'll need to think about Nate's point - is this common or an
edge case? Is there any other approach we could take?
Eric Hellman
President, Gluejar, Inc.
41 Watchung Plaza, #132
Montclair, NJ 07042
USA
e...@hellman.net
http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/
