« Trying Chromium OS | Main | Corporate VIAF »


Ryan Shaw

http://viaf.org/viaf/99366184 is the 'real world object', a concept. On resolution it does a 303 redirect to http://viaf.org/viaf/99366184/ the generic document.

That seems extremely error-prone. Why not URIs that are more clearly distinguishable, something like http://viaf.org/viaf/99366184 and http://viaf.org/viaf/99366184/document?

Response: We've gone back and forth on this. Granted, the difference between viaf/123 and viaf/123/ is subtle, but since the only clients that care are probably those interested in the RDF, we decided there wouldn't be much confusion. People are used to similar sorts of redirection happening on URLs in their browsers all the time.


Thanks for your writing about VIAF.

Checking out the RDF representation of the links above - e.g. by doing this:

curl -H "Accept: application/rdf+xml" http://viaf.org/viaf/99366184/

The RDF/XML returned has relative links in some of the rdf:about statements - e.g. "viaf/99366184/#etcetc"

Shouldn't the links be qualified / absolute - e.g. "/viaf/99366184/#etcetc" or "http://viaf.org/viaf/etc" ?

Response: We like relative URIs. It keeps everything shorter and more portable. The xml:base ( of http://viaf.org/) in the rdf:RDF should take care of making everything work.


The same problem with relative links also appears on the HTML view of the record, in the "Record Views" section with links to other XML formats.

Response: You are correct, the HTML is wrong. We'll fix that right away. Thanks!

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

November 2015

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30