Nate's point is what I was thinking about in this comment in my  
original reply:
If you don't add DC metadata, which seems like a good idea, you'll  
definitely want to include something that will help you to persist  
your replacement record. For example, a label or description for the  
link.

I should also point out a solution that could work for some people but  
not you- put rewrite rules in the gateways serving your network. A bit  
dangerous and kludgy, but we've seen kludgier things.

On Sep 14, 2009, at 4:24 PM, O.Stephens wrote:
>
> Nate has a point here - what if we end up with a commonly used URI  
> pointing at a variety of different things over time, and so is used  
> to indicate different content each time. However the problem with a  
> 'short URL' solution (tr.im, purl etc), or indeed any locally  
> assigned identifier that acts as a key, is that as described in the  
> blog post you need prior knowledge of the short URL/identifier to  
> use it. The only 'identifier' our authors know for a website is it's  
> URL - and it seems contrary for us to ask them to use something  
> else. I'll need to think about Nate's point - is this common or an  
> edge case? Is there any other approach we could take?
>

Eric Hellman
President, Gluejar, Inc.
41 Watchung Plaza, #132
Montclair, NJ 07042
USA

[log in to unmask]
http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/