 |
 |
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/