Re: Problems and Opportunities at purl.org

Hi all,


> On Nov 10, 2015, at 20:38, Haag, Jason <jason.haag.ctr@adlnet.gov> wrote:
> 
> 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 <http://purl.org/>. The inherently  collaborative nature of w3id+github could be more appealing to others as well.
> 

I actually agree with Jason - but think we need an optional UI for non-technical users on top of the GitHub interface.

The GitHub interface also provides nice bulk upload opportunities for those who need it.

Regards,
Dave
--
http://about.me/david_wood


> On Nov 10, 2015 4:41 PM, "Norman Gray" <norman@astro.gla.ac.uk <mailto: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/ <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 <http://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 <http://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 <http://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/> <http://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 <http://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 <https://nxg.me.uk/>
> SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK
>