Nathan wrote:
Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Nathan wrote:
Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Nathan wrote:
Hi All,
I'm mainly wondering.. what the Linked Data implications of the
following are:
301 Moved Permanently
The requested resource has been assigned a new permanent URI and any
future references to this resource SHOULD use one of the returned
URIs. Clients with link editing capabilities ought to automatically
re-link references to the request-target to one or more of the new
references returned by the server, where possible. [1]
Representation of Data Object Description has new URL. Based on this
response, the calling user agent *may* update its local relation between
Data Object and the URL of the Resource that bears its Description
(Representation). This is where an explicit "isDescribeBy" relation
comes in handy re. Object Identifier association with Resource bearing
its Description.
I really think isDescribedBy is a good idea for many reasons, in this
context I'm unsure though (more below).
Unsure with regards "Representation of Data Object Description has new
URL" as the documentation is pretty explicit in saying "resource has
been assigned a new permanent URI".
In my world view: Resources have URLs while Data Objects have Generic
HTTP URIs.
I believe you can have Data Object ID:
http://dbpedia.org/resource/<data-object>
Described by a Resource at: http://dbpedia.org/page/<data-object> .
So if <http://dbpedia.org/page/<data-object> changes, the UA can update
its local cache or store or whatever mechanism it uses to handle
interaction with Data Objects with Identifiers that resolve to
Description bearing Resource Locations.
For instance if I changed by WebID and moved my FOAF profile at some
point in the future I would potentially see this as a mechanism of
informing all those who deference my "old" WebID about my new WebID,
with the additional note that they should now use "new URI" as by WebID.
WebID (a Data Object Identifier) is Referenced by your FOAF Profile
Document (a Resource at a location).
I guess I'd probably expect people to create something like <newid>
replaces <oldid>; and then use new from here on..
Yes, but try to be clear about what's changing here. Is it the Data
Object Idenfifier or the location of its Resource bearing Description.
Identifiers (irrespective of whether they resolve or not must be
distinct from the things they are associated with).
I agree, but, if I need the Identifier to stay dereferencable in order
to serve a description then I'd have to change the Data Object
Identifier regardless of where the description is; and even if there was
no description at all; when using http URIs I may need to change the URI
for legal reasons.
If you are the data object owner you take care of the problem via your
Linked Data Server e.g. owl:sameAs between new and old (enable
reasoning in the SPARQL behind the re-write rule) or send a 301 back to
user agent.
Kingsley
Regards!
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen
President & CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
