- From: Leigh Dodds <leigh.dodds@talis.com>
- Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 10:29:32 +0000
- To: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- CC: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Sergio Fernández <sergio.fernandez@fundacionctic.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Hugh Glaser wrote: > Wow. A couple of great messages. > Interestingly (for me) I read Dan's message as not being antagonistic to the minting of URIs; rather as an excellent > discussion of some of the issues. I read Dan's comments similarly. Minting URIs should obviously be easy and encouraged, particularly at the moment where we still don't have enough URIs for things! :) And within the context of the web as a whole, URIs will break. That is a given. But within a specific community of practice we might reasonably ask whether we can do better? I don't necessarily mean the LOD community, and am instead thinking about the contexts of specific industries or communities. The scholarly publishing industry is a useful example. The wider endeavour of attempting to tie together the worlds scholarly literature to allow a stable basis for "building on the shoulders of giants", has meant that that community has adopted practices to try and encourage stability of linking that works within the web architecture: redirection services supported/funded by that community. This gives local stability within a wider context that is more unstable, i.e. the shifting sands of the web at large. I think its reasonable to wonder whether elements of the Linked Data cloud might eventually become similarly "shored up". I think understanding the wider issues and recognising the needs of individual communities is useful. But that doesn't, and shouldn't, stop us from churning out URIs wherever we need 'em ;) Cheers, L. -- Leigh Dodds Talis Platform Programme Manager e: leigh.dodds@talis.com w: http://www.talis.com/platform w: http://www.ldodds.com/blog
Received on Tuesday, 3 February 2009 10:48:19 UTC