- From: Myers, Jim <MYERSJ4@rpi.edu>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 12:27:33 -0400
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- CC: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
> (The only thing I arguing against is a defined construction of identifiers to reflect > this usage - per Web architecture, URIs whould be opaque strings.) OK - I'm not sure we need to go there for PIL either, but Kunze (John A. not Steven as I originally posted) does make such an argument for ARKs. (The ARK spec works hard to keep the subparts opaque beyond this one affordance though. see https://confluence.ucop.edu/download/attachments/16744455/arkcdl.pdf) His core arguments revolve around the issues a) that curators come and go on shorter timescales than data, hence a mechanism to find other copies of data/metadata is needed, and b) that if we're worried about curators disappearing, any mechanism for maintaining a map to copies that relies on them won't work well. Thus separating curator from thing in an actionable 'curator/thing' identifier such that just having the 'curator/thing' string (URL) is enough to let you search for and identify other copies (e.g. identifiers of the form 'thing' and 'curator2/thing'), is at least a rational choice despite the concerns about opacity. Again, while we may want to punt on anything like this, my suspicion is that the same arguments are applicable to provenance. Jim
Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2011 16:28:03 UTC