W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > September 2009

Re: URI way-back machine

From: Hausenblas, Michael <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 07:57:17 +0100
Message-ID: <8C4126BA-019F-48B8-898C-D70B3ED8811F@deri.org>
To: Jiří Procházka <ojirio@gmail.com>
Cc: <semantic-web@w3.org>

Like the Internet Archive [1]?


[1] http://www.archive.org/


Sent from my iPhone

On 20 Sep 2009, at 03:01, "Jiří Procházka" <ojirio@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi, I have an idea for an interesting web service (sort of)...
> We all know every URI stops working as expected one sad day and we  
> want
> to get the functionality they offered at some point in past.
> This is a way to connect REST applications with web archives/caches.
> Somebody would provide a domain which would serve for the purpose of
> representing URIs of other domains at some point in time. This  
> should be
> someone reputable who will not want to use the domain later for other
> purposes and can offer the longest ownership of it (purl.org?).
> For example URI: http://time.purl.org/iso8601/2008-08-29/http/purl.org

> (http://time.purl.org/[timeFunction]/[timeFunctionArgument]/[schema]/[theRestOfTheURI] 
> )
> would translate into: http://purl.org on day 2008-08-29
> This translating and attempt to fetch the data from past would be done
> by the client applications, the web service on time.purl.org would  
> just
> redirect clients who are unaware of the mechanism to the translated  
> so even though they did not get the desired content from the past,  
> they
> still try to get what is at the URI in present.
> The use of time function would enable various formats of time and
> choosing methods, or even an argument-less function for getting list  
> of
> all version the mechanism is able to fetch. In fact this can be used  
> not
> only for retrieval of content from past, but any actions which require
> the wrapped URI to work as normal when the mechanism is not supported.
> Of course the web service could provide the mechanism too so no change
> is needed in the client applications (but applications could override
> it), but this would limit the choice of time functions to those  
> provided
> by the service, though some standardization would be good.
> I know it's a hack but useful one IMHO.
> What do you think?
> Best regards,
> Jiri Prochazka
Received on Sunday, 20 September 2009 06:57:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:15 UTC