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

Phil,

> >
> > 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.
> 
> I like the simple approach for the reasons you give.
> 
> What worries me is that we risk getting into a long debate about
> whether
> a DOI resolves or not (IMO of course it doesn't - it only resolves if
> you stick it on the end of a URL in which case it is a different
> identifier) and what the semantics of a DOI may be (or ORCID or any of
> the other similar schemes).
> 

I thought of a different formulation:


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

Would that be less controversial? 

> 
> >
> > 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".
> 
> Again, I like that. I'd be in favour of encouraging a more structured
> approach, as in the UK examples, but agree we need to recognise,
> always,
> that people can only build on top of what they have, technically and
> institutionally.
> 

We could have a long discussion about good reasons to strive for as little semantics as possible in URIs (in line with DanBri's 'first rule of URI design': "you're more likely to regret things you included, than things you omitted" https://twitter.com/danbri/status/508981586738814976), but I'd say that is out of scope for the group.

Makx.

Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2014 10:46:03 UTC