RE: dwbp-ISSUE-46 (PIDs): How should we handle the issue of persistent URI design? [Use Cases & Requirements Document]

I think this is about all we can say: "Data should be persistently identifiable.". The only thing maybe is explain a little bit more what this means, e.g.

The identifier that is assigned to a particular resource should resolve, at least for the foreseeable future, to that same resource or to information why the resource is no longer there.

The actual syntax of URIs can vary widely, because an organisation will choose a design that reflects the way they can make and maintain the commitment to persistence. Some organisations will opt for a semantically rich syntax (such as the UK Gov approach); others will follow an (almost) semantics-free design like Tomas' COMURI proposal.

As organisations might have good arguments for selecting a particular design, this group may not be able to declare one approach 'best practice' beyond saying that (as someone once said) "persistence is non-negotiable".

Makx.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Issue Tracker
> [mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 9:47 AM
> To: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
> Subject: dwbp-ISSUE-46 (PIDs): How should we handle the issue of
> persistent URI design? [Use Cases & Requirements Document]
> 
> dwbp-ISSUE-46 (PIDs): How should we handle the issue of persistent URI
> design? [Use Cases & Requirements Document]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/46
> 
> Raised by: Phil Archer
> On product: Use Cases & Requirements Document
> 
> As of 2014-10-01, the UCR does not explicitly call for advice on URI
> design/design for persistence. It is, however, implied in R-
> PersistentIdentification which says "Data should be persistently
> identifiable."
> 
> Do we need to add any detail to this? Or an additional requirement? Or
> do we think we've covered it?
> 
> Context is all. In W3C space, persistent identifier means persistent
> URI. For some communities, that doesn't match the culture (scientific
> publishing for example).
>

Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2014 08:13:40 UTC