LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ID Archives


ID Archives

ID Archives


ID@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ID Home

ID Home

ID  June 2020

ID June 2020

Subject:

Re: ID switching to HTTPS

From:

"Jon P. Stroop" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

LC Linked Data Service Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 17 Jun 2020 17:40:22 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

Just chiming in to say that we had this discussion in the IIIF community and decided to keep HTTP URIs as our canonical URIs. This was ~4 years ago and I believe we took guidance from here: https://www.w3.org/blog/2016/05/https-and-the-semantic-weblinked-data/. There is some context for the decision on this issue: https://github.com/IIIF/api/issues/604 .

-Jon

´╗┐On 6/17/20, 11:12 AM, "LC Linked Data Service Discussion List on behalf of Antoine Isaac" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote:

    Thanks for this clarification, Kevin!

    It seems like the community would do an odd thing with the differentiated here. I can understand some of the motivations, but it wouldn't be easy to explain to someone not versed in the earlier discussions.

    For the record, I do reckon you are not responsible of these discussions and we should find a community approach. But I'm struggling at this stage to find a discussion space, and honestly I feel that I won't have much time, which is perhaps the other motivation for my wanting to not break anything wrt. the canonical URIs :-)

    All the best,

    Antoine

    On 17/06/2020 16:45, Ford, Kevin wrote:
    >> By the way I am noting that LoC's plan for migration to
    >> HTTPs seem to exclude the ontologies/schemas part of
    >> LoC's offer. Does this reflect a policy?
    > 
    > -- Oddly enough, it has to do, in part, with the very reservation you have expressed.  Fear of breaking things.  The other aspect is that, again generally speaking, there has been a conscious effort not to alter the URIs of classes and properties (as published by ontologies/vocabularies).  You note DCMI, but others too.  Since it seemed that the community was avoiding change when it came to classes and properties, we were going in that direction (see earlier statement about trying to align what we do here with what others are doing).
    > 
    > Yours,
    > Kevin
    > 
    > 
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: LC Linked Data Service Discussion List <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Antoine Isaac
    > Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 10:23 AM
    > To: [log in to unmask]
    > Subject: Re: [ID.LOC.GOV] ID switching to HTTPS
    > 
    > Thanks for the answer, Kevin.
    > And I'm glad Osma has chimed in.
    > 
    > I can understand the concerns expressed at SWIB. But still I have doubts about some points, especially that the Semantic Web is still young and can afford changing its URIs. I wonder what would happen if DCMI would decide to change the identifiers for DC terms from HTTP to HTTPs...
    >    By the way I am noting that LoC's plan for migration to HTTPs seem to exclude the ontologies/schemas part of LoC's offer. Does this reflect a policy?
    > 
    > Cheers,
    > 
    > Antoine
    > 
    > On 17/06/2020 15:34, Osma Suominen wrote:
    >> Hi Kevin,
    >>
    >> I have the same concern as Antoine.
    >>
    >> In our YSO (General Finnish Ontology) data, we have more than 10k statements similar to this:
    >>
    >> yso:p1191 skos:closeMatch <http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85145789> .
    >>
    >> which is machine-speak for "the YSO concept of 'waves' is pretty much the same as the LCSH concept 'Waves'".
    >>
    >> Then we use our own Skosmos software to display this information in Finto.fi. Skosmos performs a lookup to the LCSH URI above, parses the RDF it gets back, then tries to find a triple like this in the data:
    >>
    >> <http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85145789> skos:prefLabel ?label .
    >>
    >> And this matches the label "Waves"@en, and this gets displayed in the UI, and all is well.
    >>
    >>
    >> But, if you switch to HTTPS, as it currently stands, Skosmos doesn't understand the RDF response you seem to be aiming for:
    >>
    >> <http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85145789> owl:sameAs <https://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85145789> .
    >>
    >> <https://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85145789> skos:prefLabel ?label "Waves"@en .
    >>
    >>
    >> Now this can be fixed in many ways (including changing Skosmos to
    >> follow owl:sameAs statements), and most likely if the canonical LCSH
    >> URIs switched to HTTPS, we would make the same change for all the YSO
    >> statements, and everything would sync up nicely again. But requiring
    >> everyone to change their URI references like this is a bit problematic
    >> IMHO. For us it's probably quite easy, since the LCSH URIs are used in
    >> only one data set (YSO) and only for mappings, not in e.g.
    >> bibliographic databases with millions of records. (Though we do have
    >> some references to other LC vocabularies as well in a few places)
    >>
    >> One somewhat less disruptive change would be to keep the HTTP URI as the canonical ones (with the label statements etc.), but still use owl:sameAs to point to the HTTPS version, like this:
    >>
    >> <https://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85145789> owl:sameAs <http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85145789> .
    >>
    >> <http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85145789> skos:prefLabel ?label "Waves"@en .
    >>
    >> This would not retract any currently available triples from the data set, just add a bunch more.
    >>
    >> -Osma
    >>
    >> PS. Actually I simplified the picture a little. For many years we did traditional Linked Data URI lookups of the kind I explained above to LCSH, but those were quite slow and unreliable, so in Skosmos 2.5 (released April 2020) we switched to the ad-hoc X-PrefLabel HTTP header mechanism that id.loc.gov provides. So the above is no longer accurate in the Finto/Skosmos/LCSH case, but other Linked Data resolvers will probably do things in a similar way.
    >>
    >> Ford, Kevin kirjoitti 17.6.2020 klo 16.07:
    >>> Thanks, Antoine, for the info.
    >>>
    >>> Nothing has changed, yet, so your input is helpful.  We recognize the issue you raise - we have it too since we use our own URIs everywhere.
    >>>
    >>> To be honest, we're using this informative page as a starting point:
    >>>
    >>> https://wiki.dnb.de/display/DINIAGKIM/HTTP+vs.+HTTPS+in+resource+iden
    >>> tification
    >>>
    >>> I was not at SWIB so I did not participate in the discussion.  As
    >>> such, I don't have firsthand experience with the discussion and
    >>> therefore anything that might have been accidentally omitted from the
    >>> notes.  My general takeaway is that 1) there is still a number of
    >>> questions surrounding this but 2) there seemed to be a general
    >>> movement toward changing the URIs to HTTPS and employing an
    >>> owl:sameAs relationship.  That seems to have been the case with
    >>> Sweden, certainly.  And BNF and DNB use HTTPS URIs though I can't
    >>> seem to find - or am unclear about - the owl:sameAs assertions for
    >>> those two libraries.  (It could be I was looking in the wrong place.)
    >>>
    >>> We're mostly interested in going in a direction that will cause least friction and align with the general trajectory of others facing this similar issue.  This is why your example is helpful, since it departs from what we largely see the community doing from the notes of that SWIB meeting.
    >>>
    >>> Do others have thoughts?
    >>>
    >>> Yours,
    >>> Kevin
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> -----Original Message-----
    >>> From: LC Linked Data Service Discussion List <[log in to unmask]> On
    >>> Behalf Of Antoine Isaac
    >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 4:55 AM
    >>> To: [log in to unmask]
    >>> Subject: Re: [ID.LOC.GOV] ID switching to HTTPS
    >>>
    >>> Hello Kevin,
    >>>
    >>> Thanks for the heads-up!
    >>>
    >>> I think I will ask for a double-check: the vocabulary URIs like LCSH will now de-refer to data where the statements will use HTTPs URIs?
    >>>
    >>> Using a toy example...
    >>>
    >>> If Europeana receives statements like ex:book dcterms:subject
    >>> <http://id.loc.gov/x>
    >>>
    >>> Then when getting the data for <http://id.loc.gov/x> we will get these statements:
    >>> <https://id.loc.gov/x> skos:prefLabel "label" .
    >>> <https://id.loc.gov/x> owl:sameAs <http://id.loc.gov/x> .
    >>>
    >>> Is that correct?
    >>>
    >>> If yes, it means that data users will have to rely on owl:sameAs machinery or re-write all URIs, otherwise their data will be 'broken' (i.e. they wouldn't directly get statements about the URIs that they look up).
    >>>
    >>> For the record at rightsstatements.org we have considered the issue
    >>> and opted to still use HTTP URIs as "canonical" identifiers in the
    >>> data we serve (though there's HTTPs in the service that provides the
    >>> data and web pages). And we hope that other actors like Creative
    >>> Commons will *not* make the move of using HTTPs URIs as "canonical"
    >>> identifiers, because that would force us to make too many changes
    >>> (also in non-RDF aware part of the software, and documentation!)
    >>>
    >>> All the best,
    >>>
    >>> Antoine
    >>> ---
    >>> Antoine Isaac
    >>> R&D Manager, Europeana
    >>>
    >>> On 16/06/2020 23:46, Ford, Kevin wrote:
    >>>> Most faithful users of ID.LOC.GOV:
    >>>>
    >>>> In the next 3-4 weeks, ID will be switching to HTTPS.  Until now, ID has operated via HTTP, though for several years now HTTPS has been an option for anyone who wanted to use HTTPS instead.
    >>>>
    >>>> A 301 (Permanent Redirect) will be implemented to direct HTTP requests to their HTTPS equivalents. There is no end date at this time for the 301 redirect, but we encourage everyone to start using the HTTPS URIs once the switchover happens. It'll decrease latency (fewer HTTP calls/redirects) and, of course, ensure your communication with the service is encrypted from the outset.
    >>>>
    >>>> Except for the classes and properties of ontologies/vocabularies hosted at ID - Bibframe, MADS/RDF, and PREMIS - the HTTPS URI will become /the/ URI for resources.  We will add owl:sameAs properties to those resources to capture the fact that the HTTPS URI is the same as the HTTP URI.  To be clear: the URIs for classes and properties of ontologies/vocabularies hosted at ID will still be referenced as HTTP URIs even if the client is redirected to an HTTPS address.
    >>>>
    >>>> The URIs in the bulk downloads are one of the trickier aspects of this change.  Our thinking presently is to re-issue all the bulk downloads as soon as we can wherein the HTTPS URI is /the/ identifier for resources.  What we're not clear about is how disruptive this will be for those of you who make regular use of the bulk downloads.  We'd welcome your feedback either way as this will help us determine if re-issuing the bulk downloads with the new URIs is acceptable or whether we need to explore additional options.
    >>>>
    >>>> Do let us know.
    >>>>
    >>>> All the best,
    >>>>
    >>>> Kevin
    >>>>
    >>>> --
    >>>>
    >>>> Kevin Ford
    >>>>
    >>>> Library of Congress
    >>>>
    >>>> Washington, DC
    >>>>
    >>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
March 2020
February 2020
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
April 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2017
July 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
March 2015
February 2015
October 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
March 2014
January 2014
November 2013
September 2013
August 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
November 2009
June 2009
May 2009

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager