W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-egov-ig@w3.org > April 2009

RE: URI/URL good practices -- [was: Re: Group Note FPWD is done]

From: Hugh Barnes <Hugh.BARNES@disability.qld.gov.au>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:10:23 +1000
Message-ID: <596807C5F938A14A9203F343CE5C33A3011ECDCD@DC105EXCSV04.ebus.root.internal>
To: "Jose M. Alonso" <josema@w3.org>
Cc: "eGov IG" <public-egov-ig@w3.org>, "John Sheridan" <John.Sheridan@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jose M. Alonso [mailto:josema@w3.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, 22 April 2009 12:32 AM
> To: Hugh Barnes
> Cc: eGov IG; John Sheridan
> Subject: URI/URL good practices -- [was: Re: Group Note FPWD is done]
> 
> Hi Hugh,
> 
> Thanks for your suggestions that touch mainly on the sections that  
> John and I lead. I opened ISSUE-25.
> 

You're welcome - and thanks for altering the subject field, which I had meant to do. Apologies for my oversight there.

I have since found the use case for persistent URIs: http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/wiki/Use_Case_10_-_Persistent_URIs. The "Web Continuity" solution in the UK is remarkably similar to the one we are drafting. (There was also an initiative at our National Archives called "e-permanence", but they moved things around on their website and now I cannot locate it ~:{ )

> You said that:
> > I realise all that may be too much detail for an overview 
> document.  
> > I cautiously offer to help with a draft. Only "cautiously" 
> because I  
> > can't guarantee availability.
> 
> 
> I want to strongly support the idea of Best Practices-like 
> work though  
> for year 2-3. I would love to have discussion on this once Note  
> published, for example on the big topic of "how government 
> information  
> should be published on the Web?".
> 
> My proposal: integrate the first comment with John's piece (he's the  
> one who did the well written ones), and postpone the rest for the  
> future work, maybe adding a hint in OGD section or just by 
> linking to  
> John's piece from there for now.
> 
> What do you think?

Forgive me, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "the first comment".

> Of course, we encourage you to remove the "cautiously" from 
> there in a  
> couple months time, join the Group and co-author some of the 
> upcoming  
> stuff :)
> 

I'll be very happy to, but it won't be on my employer's time. I'm absolutely passionate about communicating these concepts effectively.

Joining the group seemed out of reach when I checked it at the group's instigation. Is "invited expert" the only path for employees of non-member organisations?

Cheers



"Queensland celebrates its 150th anniversary in 2009. Check out what's on today at www.q150.qld.gov.au."

********************************* DISCLAIMER *********************************
The information contained in the above e-mail message or messages (which includes any attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged.  It is intended only for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed.  If you are not the addressee any form of disclosure, copying, modification, distribution or any action taken or omitted in reliance on the information is unauthorised.  Opinions contained in the message(s) do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Queensland Government and its authorities.  If you received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your computer system network.
Received on Thursday, 23 April 2009 07:18:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 23 April 2009 07:18:45 GMT