- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 14:33:28 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
I guess I can say a bit more about the problem, and try to head off Larry... also I can link this to ISSUE-50, as I should have before... (Looking at http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/50 I see that I am sort of repeating myself: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/03/uris-and-trust.html sorry, I'm still trying to come up with a clear and concise formulation.) Persistence of content is not the issue here. Mostly this is the domain of forces that can take care of themselves: the scholarly record, the legal and legislative records, and so on. Persistence of content is implemented by safeguarding and, more importantly I think, replication, as when copies of a book are acquired by many different libraries. Persistence of access is also not the issue, if the access is being done by a person. Take the full reference (title, author, year, keywords, etc.), check libraries, check search engines, ask your friends, post a reward, and so on. Copies come and go at different locations, and the original publisher may be long gone, but if it's important its current location(s) should be tracked in *some* index or catalog and you should be able to find it. (The catalogs should themselves be safeguarded and replicated of course.) Or when you do find it without the help of a catalog, you should be able to tell a catalog where it is now. The problem in question here is not access but *automated access* to artifacts, given that copies come and go in various locations and are under stewardship that often can't be predicted or coordinated. The ideal outcome would be actionable references (hyperlinks) in the permanent record that are considered a good bet for actionability in the future. This is not a particularly difficult technical problem. The TAG-level issue is figuring out what constitutes "best practice" and encouraging any changes that might be in order. My evidence that there is an issue is the continuing moral competition between http: , URN, handle/DOI, and none-of-the-above (traditional reference), each of which has merits and could be made to work, but none of which in my opinion is a complete solution at present. Jonathan On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org> wrote: > Some thoughts on persistence for our upcoming discussion... these are > some of my talking points, I don't expect this document to be totally > clear. > > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/06/persistence-teaser.html > > Jonathan
Received on Friday, 4 June 2010 18:34:00 UTC