RE: Link rot in Supreme Court decisions

Memento makes much more sense and is much more compelling as a (proposed) standard interface supported by (or at least compatible with) the collective community of web archivers.
Trying to isolate a solution to "link rot" as a separate, independent problem from archiving just weakens the concept, and invites people to think the two problems are readily separable.
When you say you want a link to be "permanent", whatever it is you want to preserve seems to be highly correlated to whatever it is you thought the link meant in the first place.

(permanent link to a page that tells you the weather of the day you look, permanent link to a page that tells you TODAY's whether on the date when the link was made, for example.)

IMNSHO

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net


> Admittedly, these sources of prior resource versions do not cover all
> prior versions of all resources. But there's a significant body of
> prior resource versions out there. For example, the Internet Archive
> is said to currently contain 335 billion archived web resources. To
> put it differently, there's a significant body of URIs out there for
> which machine-actionable temporal information added to a link, as
> proposed in the document I shared, would be useful rather than
> useless. Hence, it would be nice to see a discussion that is more
> about that aspect of the reference rot problem that is addressed in
> the document I shared, and less about those aspect that the document
> has no proposal for and for which it relies on ongoing international
> efforts pertaining to web archiving.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Herbert
> 
> 
> --
> Herbert Van de Sompel
> Digital Library Research & Prototyping
> Los Alamos National Laboratory, Research Library
> http://public.lanl.gov/herbertv/
> 
> ==

Received on Wednesday, 9 October 2013 22:17:38 UTC