W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-perma-id@w3.org > November 2015

Re: Problems and Opportunities at purl.org

From: Haag, Jason <jason.haag.ctr@adlnet.gov>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 19:38:05 -0600
Message-ID: <CAHjqjn+4GiMwCaVU8yNC8twdGm7xOSXCOjKNWE1Vq_8Hy9Gusw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Norman Gray <norman@astro.gla.ac.uk>
Cc: Pemanent Identifier CG <public-perma-id@w3.org>, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
For what it's worth I personally find the workflow of W3id.org and using
git hub more attractive than registering and assigning maintainers to
Purlz. The admin interface for managing maintainers was also disabled
sometime ago for purl.org. The inherently  collaborative nature of
w3id+github could be more appealing to others as well.
On Nov 10, 2015 4:41 PM, "Norman Gray" <norman@astro.gla.ac.uk> wrote:

>
> David and all, hello.
>
> On 10 Nov 2015, at 21:33, David Wood wrote:
>
> Purl.org <http://purl.org/> has a user interface :) It is not grand
>> (Brian and I created it in a rush), but it does allow library users to
>> create accounts, create and modify their PURLs, search for PURLs, see basic
>> history information, validate PURL targets. They can also request the
>> creation of “domains” (paths) that administrators can approve or deny.
>> Admins can also manage users and groups.
>>
>
> It's an obvious point, but just so it's part of the conversation I'll
> point out that a neo-purl.org interface wouldn't have to do everything
> that the old one did.  Since I'd _guess_ that the comfortable majority of
> purl.org URLs were of one or two redirecting types (I'd be fascinated to
> be proved wrong), an initial version of a replacement could be extremely
> limited and still be valuable, if only to verify that the replacement
> organisation was as functional as we all hope.
>
> I'd guess that the truly genuinely necessary functionality would be:
>
>   * maintain current purl.org redirects (even if some of the odder ones
> have to be done by one-off hand-hacking);
>
>   * allow registration of new 307 redirects (and possibly 303, but because
> it's RTTD rather then necessarily widespread);
>
>   * allow reservation of new 'domains';
>
> ...and nothing else in version 1.
>
> David, you also said:
>
> but we would need to migrate the existing w3id.org <http://w3id.org/>
>> PURLs forward, I think.
>>
>
> In the same spirit, is that _really_ the case?
>
> Speaking for myself, I've no particular commitment to the three or four
> w3id entries I've added, since they were partly experiments, and partly for
> the gesture.  The same might possibly be true for a good fraction of the
> other entries.  Even where folk do have a commitment to their redirects,
> the very oldest entries are 2.5 years old, and many much younger, so we're
> not talking about a vast depth of deployment.
>
> I wouldn't want to suggest a threshold number, but if fewer than N folk
> really care about their entries, is there a case for saying, *shrug*, this
> is another bit of the web that's got a bit broken, but the payoff is a new
> purl.org, _faster_.  If so, then the sooner this is decided the better,
> since it's clear that the rate of new entries is increasing beyond the
> point where this would be a reasonable option.
>
> All the best,
>
> Norman
>
>
> --
> Norman Gray  :  https://nxg.me.uk
> SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 11 November 2015 01:38:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:43:41 UTC