Hiya,
Been meaning to jump into this discussion for a while, but I've been
off to an alternative universe and I can't even say it's good to be
back. :) Anwhoo ...
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 03:48, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
wrote:
> You're right, if there were a "web:" URI scheme, the world
The difference between URIs and URLs? I don't believe that "URL" is something
that exists any more in any standard, it's all URIs. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I don't entirely agree with either dogmatic side here, but I do think that
we've arrived at an awfully confusing (for developers) environm
From: "Jonathan Rochkind"
The difference between URIs and URLs? I don't believe that "URL" is
something that exists any more in any standard, it's all URIs.
The URL is alive and well.
The W3C "definition", http://www.w3.org/TR/uri-clarification/
"a URL is a type of URI that identifies a re
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 23:34, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> The difference between URIs and URLs? I don't believe that "URL" is
> something that exists any more in any standard, it's all URIs. Correct me if
> I'm wrong.
Sure it exists: URLs are a subset of URIs. URLs are locators as
opposed to "
Can you show me where this definition of a "URL" vs. a "URI" is made in any RFC
or standard-like document?
Sure, we have a _sense_ of how the connotation is different, but I don't think
that sense is actually formalized anywhere. And that's part of what makes it
confusing, yeah. I think the se
Thanks Ray. By that definition ALL http URIs are URLs, a priori. I read
Alexander as trying to make a different distinction.
Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:
From: "Jonathan Rochkind"
The difference between URIs and URLs? I don't believe that "URL" is
something that exists any
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
> Jonathan Rochkind
> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 10:21 AM
> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] resolution and identification (was Re:
> [CODE4LIB] registering info: uris?)
>
> Over in: http://www.w3.or
Am I not an agent making use of a URI who is attempting to infer
properties from it? Like that it represents a SuDoc, and in particular
what that SuDoc is?
If this kind of talmudic parsing of the TAG reccommendations to figure
out what they _really_ mean is neccesary, I stand by my statement t
The "User Agent" is understood to be a typical browser, or other piece of
software, like wget, curl, etc. It's the thing implementing the client side
of the specs. I don't think "you" are operating as a user agent here as
much as you are a server application. That is, assuming I have any idea
wh
Hi all,
I've been a software developer in a research library for several years, and
I have worked with objects typically viewed as museum collections to a large
degree (particularly ancient coins and eighteenth century European sheet
music). Since I'm from a library and am familiar with library t
Ethan,
Mellon funded a project, "CollectionSpace" that addresses the needs of
museums specifically. The Rutgers bibliographic utility, OpenMIC, which I
hope will finally go open source in May, also supports the needs of
museums in terms of rights and provenance information. We designed the
utili
Alexander Johannesen wrote:
We currently use topic maps, alot, in our infrastructure. If we were
starting again tomorrow, I'd advocate using RDF instead, mainly because of
the much better tool support and take-up.
Hmm, not a good thing at all. Could you elaborate, though, as I use it
too as par
Summary: URL shortening services, such as TinyURL, are a problem. The
folks who have proposed rev=canonical have written some useful
software around it, but rev=canonical has some potentially
insurmountable issues.
I suggest the following posts if you find this at all interesting:
The post that d
Wait, is this the same or different than , as in:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/02/specify-your-canonical.html
seemed like a good idea to me. But when I start
reading some of those URLs, it's not clear to me if they're talking
about the same thing or not.
Jonathan
Brett
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> Wait, is this the same or different than , as in:
>
> http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/02/specify-your-canonical.html
>
> seemed like a good idea to me. But when I start
> reading some of those URLs, it's not clear to me
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
> Brett Bonfield
> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 5:35 PM
> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Anyone else watching rev=canonical?
>
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Jonathan Rochkind
> wrote:
> > Wait,
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Houghton,Andrew wrote:
>> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
>> Brett Bonfield
>>
>> Different. Which is one of the problems with rev=canonical.
>
> Another issue is that Google, Microsoft, et al. couldn't see that their
> propo
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
> Brett Bonfield
> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 6:48 PM
> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Anyone else watching rev=canonical?
>
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Houghton,Andrew
> wrote:
> >> From:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Houghton,Andrew wrote:
>> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
>> Brett Bonfield
>>
>> However, just to be clear, rev=canonical != rel=canonical.
>>
>> They are discrete responses to distinct issues.
>
> Agreed. Another issue wit
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 07:10, stuart yeates wrote:
> RDF, unlike topic maps, is being used by substantial numbers of people who
> we interact with in the real world and would like to interoperate with. If
> we used RDF rather than topic maps internally, that interoperability would
> be much, much
There is the Specify software for natural history collections:
http://specifysoftware.org/
The source code has apparently just recently been deposited on
SourceForge.
-hilmar
On Apr 14, 2009, at 3:12 PM, Ethan Gruber wrote:
Hi all,
I've been a software developer in a research lib
Alexander Johannesen wrote:
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 07:10, stuart yeates wrote:
For example the people at http://lcsubjects.org have never heard of us (that
I know of), but we can use their URLs like
http://lcsubjects.org/subjects/sh90005545#concept to represent our roles.
Not sure I understa
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 10:32, stuart yeates wrote:
> Yes, we mint something very similar (see http://authority.nzetc.org/52969/
> for mine), but none of our interoperability partners do. None of our local
> libraries, none of our local archives and only one of our local museums (by
> virtue of so
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 00:20, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> Can you show me where this definition of a "URL" vs. a "URI" is made in any
> RFC or standard-like document?
>From http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3986.html ;
1.1.3. URI, URL, and URN
A URI can be further classified as a locator, a name
Google's Matt Cutts tweeted a few days ago that he didn't understand
why Twitter and similar services don't simply resolve short URLs to
their long form and store/display them that way.
Things like that have been on my mind for a while, but I've only just
put some of those thoughts to words
25 matches
Mail list logo
