Thursday the 11th of December 2014 at 8:47pm (+00:00)

+ http://pudo.org/blog/2014/12/03/newsclipse.html

Amy added 'What if journalists had story writing tools as powerful as those used by coders? - pudo.org (Friedrich Lindenberg)' to Bookmarks

Blog Post URIs

My instinct is telling me to separate a 'raw' blog post from a rendered version which includes html markup, css styles, replies from other people, a header, footer, maybe links to other pages on my website on a menu somewhere, ...etc. Because an instance of a blog post is not the same as the post mashed into an HTML page along with replies and other stuff. The replies can stand alone on the social web, so the original post should be able to.

So 'raw' post URIs are in the form https://rhiaro.co.uk/llog/unique-post-slug and the rendered versions are found at https://rhiaro.co.uk/yyyy/mm/unique-post-slug. The rendered versions have a slashy-datey URL because it makes it obvious that you can filter back to temporal aggregates by removing parts of the URL. It's just plumbing and a bit of UX++, which is partly why I don't want to use this format as the URI for the blog itself (I might change my plumbing one day).

Dereferencing the rendered URI obviously returns the rendered page in all its glory.

Dereferencing the 'raw' URI should still return a document, not redirect, because a blog post can be retrieved over HTTP. But what exactly should it return? A bunch of plain text turtle maybe; all the triples with the URI as the subject. Or minimally marked up HTML (including microformats, I suppose, and maybe RDFa). I guess I just have an arbitrary decision to make here.

So what's the relationship between the 'raw' URI and the rendered one? Maybe <raw> foaf:primaryTopicOf <rendered> and <rendered> foaf:primaryTopic <raw>? (Or maybe I should coin a new renderedAt property to make the relationship clearer).

But when people want to start sending replies from their own sites, they're automatically going to want to use the rendered URI as the subject of their in-reply-to, however they do it, which would be technically incorrect; they should be replying to the blog post itself, not this rendering of it. Or maybe this is a context in which it doesn't matter, and the 'raw' and the rendered are essentially sameAs each other.

Maybe I call the 'raw' a permalink, and make it clear on the rendered page, and hope people point their replies at the right place.

But if people do muddle the blog post and the (essentially) page-about-the-blog-post in their interactions with it, it probably doesn't matter; I can disambiguate them appropriately on my end. Maybe do some contextual reinterpretation experiments in the process (watch this space).

How do other people handle this? Well the people who are replying to each others' blog posts from their own sites are indieweb and they're not necessarily big on the linked data or pedantic arguments about what a URI 'means'. Todo: Find out if anyone has implemented a blog or similar with LDP.

🏷 http://vocab.amy.so/blog#Doing http://vocab.amy.so/blog#Doing blog hacking linked data pedantry post semantic web slogd socialweb uri

Sun 28th of December 2014 at 7:44pm (+00:00)

Last modified: Sun 28th of December 2014 at 7:44pm (+00:00)

Posts between 2014/12 and 2015/01 (9 out of 9)

Blog Post URIs