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

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

From: Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 14:01:24 +0200
Cc: eGov IG <public-egov-ig@w3.org>, John Sheridan <John.Sheridan@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk>, Daniel Bennett <daniel@citizencontact.com>, Joe Carmel <joe.carmel@comcast.net>
Message-Id: <BC9C491C-853A-44A6-B07D-F9F73F8986FA@w3.org>
To: Hugh Barnes <Hugh.BARNES@disability.qld.gov.au>
Hugh,

This one is just to let you know the Group decided to close ISSUE-25.  
Added your first bit as suggested and leave and leave Best Practices  
for 2nd charter discussion.

Once again, welcome to the Group and we encourage you to participate  
in those upcoming discussions.

Cheers,
Jose.


El 23/04/2009, a las 10:05, Jose M. Alonso escribió:
> Hi Hugh,
>
> El 23/04/2009, a las 9:10, Hugh Barnes escribió:
>>> -----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 ~:{ )
>
> Ooops... thought I added a pointer to my reply but did not. Sorry  
> about that, glad you found 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".
>
> This piece:
>> Something I'd like to see emphasised more is good practice around  
>> URIs (generally URLs in this context). They are given a few  
>> mentions, and those parts are really very well written (and bear  
>> repeating):
>>
>> "Transposed to namespaces and URIs this is quick sand on which to  
>> build an essential information infrastructure using the Web.</ 
>> p><p>To give an example of the consequences of this churn,  
>> governments have difficulty maintaining persistent URIs even to  
>> documents. Increasing volumes of official reports and documents are  
>> published on the Web alone making the long term availability of  
>> those resources an important issue. In this context 'link rot' is  
>> not just an inconvenience of the user, it undermines public  
>> accountability as documents cease to be available." [1]
>>
>> I would only add to this that inability to persist resources and  
>> manage URLs inhibits willingness to link between government  
>> agencies. This is a loss for users who wants a seamless government  
>> website experience and don't care which agency (or even government)  
>> hosts the information they seek. Government departments need to  
>> deep link more and with minimal risk consideration.
>
>
> I propose John to consider integration of the bit above and link to  
> that part from the OGD section but leave the more specific comments  
> you made for 2nd charter. We have been exploring some of the ideas  
> you mentioned at the 2nd F2F and also I've learned recently at W3C  
> this topic has more background I'm not aware of and that could be of  
> interest, too.
>
> I think the URI/URL good practice is a topic that should be well  
> thought and addressed so that's why I propose to postpone discussion  
> to include the reminder of your suggestions in 2nd charter. I know  
> some people besides me (John, Daniel and Joe come to mind) have  
> strong interest in the topic so having you joining the Group could  
> only be beneficial on those discussions and how to move this forward.
>
> They may prefer to add more about this in the current document  
> though... guys?
>
>
>>> 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?
>
> Yes, more on a separate private message.
>
> Thanks again,
> Jose.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> 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 Friday, 1 May 2009 12:02:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 1 May 2009 12:02:20 GMT