Re: URI/URL good practices -- [was: Re: Group Note FPWD is done]

Hi Hugh,

El 23/04/2009, a las 9:10, Hugh Barnes escribió:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jose M. Alonso [mailto:josema@w3.org]
>> Sent: Wednesday, 22 April 2009 12:32 AM
>> To: Hugh Barnes
>> Cc: eGov IG; John Sheridan
>> Subject: URI/URL good practices -- [was: Re: Group Note FPWD is done]
>>
>> Hi Hugh,
>>
>> Thanks for your suggestions that touch mainly on the sections that
>> John and I lead. I opened ISSUE-25.
>>
>
> You're welcome - and thanks for altering the subject field, which I  
> had meant to do. Apologies for my oversight there.
>
> I have since found the use case for persistent URIs: http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/wiki/Use_Case_10_-_Persistent_URIs 
> . The "Web Continuity" solution in the UK is remarkably similar to  
> the one we are drafting. (There was also an initiative at our  
> National Archives called "e-permanence", but they moved things  
> around on their website and now I cannot locate it ~:{ )

Ooops... thought I added a pointer to my reply but did not. Sorry  
about that, glad you found it.


>> You said that:
>>> I realise all that may be too much detail for an overview
>> document.
>>> I cautiously offer to help with a draft. Only "cautiously"
>> because I
>>> can't guarantee availability.
>>
>>
>> I want to strongly support the idea of Best Practices-like
>> work though
>> for year 2-3. I would love to have discussion on this once Note
>> published, for example on the big topic of "how government
>> information
>> should be published on the Web?".
>>
>> My proposal: integrate the first comment with John's piece (he's the
>> one who did the well written ones), and postpone the rest for the
>> future work, maybe adding a hint in OGD section or just by
>> linking to
>> John's piece from there for now.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> Forgive me, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "the first  
> comment".

This piece:
> Something I'd like to see emphasised more is good practice around  
> URIs (generally URLs in this context). They are given a few  
> mentions, and those parts are really very well written (and bear  
> repeating):
>
> "Transposed to namespaces and URIs this is quick sand on which to  
> build an essential information infrastructure using the Web.</ 
> p><p>To give an example of the consequences of this churn,  
> governments have difficulty maintaining persistent URIs even to  
> documents. Increasing volumes of official reports and documents are  
> published on the Web alone making the long term availability of  
> those resources an important issue. In this context 'link rot' is  
> not just an inconvenience of the user, it undermines public  
> accountability as documents cease to be available." [1]
>
> I would only add to this that inability to persist resources and  
> manage URLs inhibits willingness to link between government  
> agencies. This is a loss for users who wants a seamless government  
> website experience and don't care which agency (or even government)  
> hosts the information they seek. Government departments need to deep  
> link more and with minimal risk consideration.


I propose John to consider integration of the bit above and link to  
that part from the OGD section but leave the more specific comments  
you made for 2nd charter. We have been exploring some of the ideas you  
mentioned at the 2nd F2F and also I've learned recently at W3C this  
topic has more background I'm not aware of and that could be of  
interest, too.

I think the URI/URL good practice is a topic that should be well  
thought and addressed so that's why I propose to postpone discussion  
to include the reminder of your suggestions in 2nd charter. I know  
some people besides me (John, Daniel and Joe come to mind) have strong  
interest in the topic so having you joining the Group could only be  
beneficial on those discussions and how to move this forward.

They may prefer to add more about this in the current document  
though... guys?


>> Of course, we encourage you to remove the "cautiously" from
>> there in a
>> couple months time, join the Group and co-author some of the
>> upcoming
>> stuff :)
>>
>
> I'll be very happy to, but it won't be on my employer's time. I'm  
> absolutely passionate about communicating these concepts effectively.
>
> Joining the group seemed out of reach when I checked it at the  
> group's instigation. Is "invited expert" the only path for employees  
> of non-member organisations?

Yes, more on a separate private message.

Thanks again,
Jose.



>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> "Queensland celebrates its 150th anniversary in 2009. Check out  
> what's on today at www.q150.qld.gov.au."
>
> ********************************* DISCLAIMER  
> *********************************
> The information contained in the above e-mail message or messages  
> (which includes any attachments) is confidential and may be legally  
> privileged.  It is intended only for the use of the person or entity  
> to which it is addressed.  If you are not the addressee any form of  
> disclosure, copying, modification, distribution or any action taken  
> or omitted in reliance on the information is unauthorised.  Opinions  
> contained in the message(s) do not necessarily reflect the opinions  
> of the Queensland Government and its authorities.  If you received  
> this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately  
> and delete it from your computer system network.
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 23 April 2009 08:06:48 UTC