On 2012-03 -23, at 21:02, Jeni Tennison wrote: > > On 23 Mar 2012, at 22:42, Jonathan A Rees wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Jeni Tennison <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> While there are instances of linked data websites using 303 redirections, >>> there are also many examples of people making statements about URIs >>> (particularly using HTML link relations, RDFa, microdata, and microformats) >>> where those statements indicate that the URI is supposed to identify a >>> non-information resource such as a Person or Book. >> >> Can you provide a handful of these Doing It Wrong URIs please from >> various sites? I think it would really be helpful to have them on hand >> during discussions. > > > OK. These picked up from dumps made available by webdatacommons.org, so very > grateful to them for making that available; it can be quite hard to locate > this kind of markup generally. Also I've used Gregg's distiller [1] to > extract the RDFa out of the documents to double-check. > > > http://www.logosportswear.com/product/1531 > -> 301 > -> http://www.logosportswear.com/product/1531/harbor-cruise-boat-tote > > which contains the RDFa statement > > <http://www.logosportswear.com/product/1531> > a <http://rdf.data-vocabulary.org/#Product> ; > . > > The URI is intended to identify a product, not a web page. >
Indeed, and notice that it has a different URI from the web page The 301 could be easily changed to a 303, and all would be happy. They have done the difficult bit of separating out the product and the page. A site, by the way, which uses 301 is saying that the URI you asked for is obsolete, and you should stop using it. Tim
