Re: [semanticweb] Purl.org offline?

On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür
<reto.bachmann@trialox.org> wrote:
> Alan Ruttenberg said the following on 2008-10-15 16:03:
>> I believe that the model we should look to is the linux distribution
>> system. There are a number of mirrors each of which are coequal. On
>> can explicitly choose which site to use or have on randomly assigned.
>> In a federation of PURLs one site turned casino would be quickly
>> removed from the list.

> This is possible only if a special purl-uri scheme is used, if the uri
> of the term is an http-uri and something went wrong with the domain
> renewal, semantic web agents would consider the triples of the
> casino-site as autoritative about the terms.

I think the ownership of the domain and the running of the servers
would be decoupled. That way it's inexpensive to keep the domain name
alive (it ought be managed by a trust). The usual situation is that
these are not decoupled and so the pressures that might cause a
service provider to go away (e.g. lack of funds) would not impinge on
the maintenance of the name (which is a matter of $10/year).

-Alan