Thank you Thomas for the feedback.
It seems that we all agree on what you say, i..e on using unversioned URIs.
The below doc summarises the conclusions and the related open issues (to be
discussed at the forthcoming SIG meeting):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pU_WJcCU5R-Fz_NTU1VcjhocLG--rsb
Hello
I strongly support unversionned URIs. Versionned URIs will be hell to
maintain, to explain, to consume.
It is the _dataset_ (in the sense of DCAT) that should be versionned at
each release, not the URIs declared inside it.
It was mentionned in the original message that *"When one builds a
kn
g
> *Sent:* 28 September 2021 18:05
> *To:* Ethan Gruber; Ethan Gruber via Crm-sig; Pavlos Fafalios
> *Subject:* Re: [Crm-sig] URI Management [Issue 460]
>
> All
>
> I do not think it is good practice to limit access to deprecated resources
> by intercepting requests. A gene
All
I do not think it is good practice to limit access to deprecated resources by intercepting requests. A general coded response may trigger an exception in a consuming application, but no appropriate action can be taken until the specific reason is known. I
Dear all,
good to see that the idea of publishing some of the CIDOC CRM as a Linked Data
resource is finally gaining traction.
Concerning versioning, I'm also in favour of a single, un-versioned URI
namespace, as long as there is a way of knowing which version is currently
being served (e.g. b
What about 410 Gone:
"Indicates that the resource requested is no longer available and will not
be available again. This should be used when a resource has been
intentionally removed and the resource should be purged. Upon receiving a
410 status code, the client should not request the resource in
Thank you Ethan.
Redirecting to Migration Instructions for a deprecated class seems
reasonable when the request is of type HTML. However, I think this is
impossible when the request type is RDF/XML; we either point to 404 or (?)
redirect to some other class, e.g., the one mentioned in the migratio
Dear Robert,
Thank you for your reply (and the interesting pointer to the FOAF's
experience with URIs :)
I fully agree. It seems that Option B1 (*"always use an unversioned base
URI in all RDFS versions"*) is the better way to go.
Let's see if there are other opinions on this.
Best regards,
Pav
I agree with Rob.
In the case of Part D, I suggest the HTTP 303 See Other for a
replacement/renaming. I agree there shouldn't be a 404 for a deprecation,
but there should be a 3xx code for redirecting to the Migration
Instructions. 301? Not sure.
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 9:40 AM Robert Sanderson v
Reordering to most important first..
> *(C) BASE URI (NAMESPACE) FOR CLASSES AND PROPERTIES *What base URI
> should we use for the classes and properties of each version when serving
> RDF content? There are three options:
> *Option B1*. Always use an unversioned base URI, i.e.,
> http://www.cido
On 27/09/2021 13:51, Pavlos Fafalios wrote:
> So, now I would also go for Option B1 where we include versioning
> information in the RDFS.
>
> Any other thoughts? Any reason for selecting Option B3?
My concern is that if we offer versioned URIs, people choosing to use
that option will be storing u
Dear Richard,
Thank you for the feedback and comments. Answers inline below:
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 3:13 PM Richard Light via Crm-sig <
crm-sig@ics.forth.gr> wrote:
> On 27/09/2021 11:34, Pavlos Fafalios via Crm-sig wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> We (at FORTH) have started working on the URIs managem
On 27/09/2021 11:34, Pavlos Fafalios via Crm-sig wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> We (at FORTH) have started working on the URIs management issue, i.e.
> on how to provide resolvable URIs for the different versions of
> CIDOC-CRM and its compatible models. We would like to hear you opinion
> about the follow
Dear all,
We (at FORTH) have started working on the URIs management issue, i.e. on
how to provide resolvable URIs for the different versions of CIDOC-CRM and
its compatible models. We would like to hear you opinion about the
following:
*(A) HAVING BOTH UNVERSIONED AND VERSIONED ONTOLOGY URIS *
14 matches
Mail list logo
