Re: Problems and Opportunities at

Shane, hello.

On 1 Mar 2016, at 15:25, Shane McCarron wrote:

> Umm...  I think A == B, in that if somehow the DNS points to
> it will just work.

That would be possibility (b).  Goal (a) would be creating a 
redirect corresponding to each redirect, and then abandoning 
the domain, or parking it ('nothing to see here').  I hope 
no-one's suggesting that, but it would be good to explicitly rule it out 
as a non-goal.

> But I don't remember anyone offering us that
> domain.

My _impression_ was that OCLC was willing to pass on the 
domain, as well as the database contents, to a suitably constituted 
successor.  I got that impression because I believe the widely assumed 
goal is at least (b), and that wouldn't be possible without a bequest of 
the domain.

> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Norman Gray <> 
> wrote:

>> Can I just check what the goal is, here?
>> Is it:
>> (a) Create a redirect for each/most redirect and
>> abandon the ones in whole or in part?
>> (b) Support as a domain -- ie, support all/most existing
>> redirects -- even if it's implemented by a
>> similar mechanism to
>> (c) Work towards a mechanism for creating new redirects by
>> whatever means?

All the best,


Norman Gray  :
SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK

Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2016 16:47:52 UTC