2010-02-13 22:03 David Carlisle <[email protected]>: > On 13/02/2010 18:20, Christoph LANGE wrote: > > So what is the purpose of having two directories? > > Historically, and perhaps still? the main difference was who had write > access. Anyone could add files to contrib just by submitting a CD via a > web form, whereas the core directory needed CVS (Now svn) write access.
Aha, I see. > > Should they be cleaned up? > > perhaps, a bit, but Cool uris's don't change > [ http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI ] > which limits how much cleanup you can do. Sure, cleaning up need not mean removing, but it can also mean setting redirects or marking some of those CDs as "obsolete". Secondly, I don't believe that _these_ URLs (I wouldn't call them URIs here, see below) are the cool ones that we should pay attention to. They are not widely used by external users and should not be used for referring to CDs or symbols. I did a quick Google search for "cdfiles2" and found some old publications, but those papers mentioned even older and less cool predecessors of these URLs, e.g. the old ones that contained "cocoon" and thus reflected the web server architecture we had at that time. > One thing that I had thought we should set up is that the short > openmath.org/cd/name version should use some smarter logic to redirect to > whatever file drrectory is being used at the back, whetheer cdfiles2/cd or > contrib/cd or somewhere else. Good point, I fully support that. _These_ are the cool URIs that should officially be used for referring to CDs and symbols (now even recommended by the MathML 3 spec), and indeed there should be such a setup as you suggest. A pre-smart setup is already in effect, in that for those CDs that are in the cdfiles2/cd directory the bare CD name redirects to the XHTML file. An inclusion of cdfiles2/contrib/cd into that should be added. And I'd suggest offering content negotiation, as described in more detail in the extended Cool URIs paper (http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/). XHTML should only be served when it is requested (HTTP header "Accept: text/html"), e.g. when accessing a CD/symbol URI/URL with a browser. Alternatively, the CD source should be served. We do not yet have a MIME type for that (do we?); can we use application/openmath+xml (see https://trac.mathweb.org/OM3/ticket/106)? Or should there be separate ones for OMOBJs and for CDs? I was planning to say more about that when receiving the notification about that Web Science submission on the (mathematical) semantics of statistical government data I mentioned two weeks ago. There, we want to annotate data exposed as RDF with URIs of OpenMath symbols. For that to work well we'd need to take Cool URIs and Linked Data best practices into account (see http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html), i.e. that content negotiation additionally serves RDF/XML when application/rdf+xml is requested. We do have all that RDF, but currently it's hidden somewhere in the OpenMath wiki and only used internally there. Cheers, Christoph -- Christoph Lange, Jacobs Univ. Bremen, http://kwarc.info/clange, Skype duke4701
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Om mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om
