W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2007

Re: Longevity of web.resource.org URIs for Creative Commons in RDF

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 19:41:41 +0100
Message-ID: <45D9EF65.8010409@danbri.org>
To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
Cc: Dan Brickley <danbrickley@gmail.com>, carl@media.org, webmaster@web.resource.org, www-archive@w3.org, tbaker@tbaker.de, ivan@w3.org, ben@adida.net, ml@gondwanaland.com

Aaron Swartz wrote:
>> Do you plan to keep this domain renewed indefinitely, and keep using
>> web.resource.org for Creative Commons?
> 
> resource.org was, of course renewed. 

I was talking about the future, not the past. All I could determine from 
whois was that it appeared to be at risk of expiring within less than a 
year. Since Swoogle reports web.resource.org as underpinning 6.77% of 
all SW/RDF docs in its index, it seemed worth nudging the various 
responsible parties. My email wasn't meant as a criticism, just a 
friendly nudge since it's easy for these tasks and roles to get tangled up.

>			If Carl was no longer interested
> in it, I'd be happy to pick it up. I do believe there's an email from
> him in the record promising to delegate web.resource.org to us in
> perpetuity. I don't know what CC plans to do about future namespaces
> but changing old ones seems to be a bad idea. I'm happy to answer more
> specific questions, but your email was kind of vague.

Hope the above makes things clearer. Basically, please - between you, 
somehow - do something that gives the wider community confidence that 
the domain name underpinning CC URIs won't go back into the great 
melting pot in the sky. I was pretty sure it's all in hand, ... but 
thought it worth the risk of annoying you all.

FWIW I quite agree re changing namespace URIs. It really causes a lot of 
hassle for consumer apps, so is only worth doing when there is a 
substantial alteration in usage/meaning.

cheers,

Dan
Received on Monday, 19 February 2007 18:42:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:02 GMT