- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:37:48 -0400
- To: public-webarch-comments@w3.org
- Cc: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Message-id: <871xfzbwmr.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> was heard to say: | * KD 012 | 3.6.1. URI Persistence | """a URI should continue indefinitely to refer to that resource.""" | That is not possible, because domain names are not defined and owned | for life. There are many social issues which are definitely harmful for | this part the World Wide Web Architecture. Asking for URI persistence | without solving the domain name issue is like asking people to go | university when they can own the price for it. See my issue KD 005. | Another problem with this motto. The "URI owner", owner can be legal | entity or a person. | If a legal entity (organization, company, etc) what's happening when | the legal entity disappears, what the URIs which relies on domain names | are supposed to become. | If a person, and this person dies (natural death or not), what the | URIs are supposed to become. | | "Indefinitely" is just impossible. It's a completely false assertions, | except if the system is organized differently. Everything you say is true, and that's why it's expressed as a "should". The section goes onto state explicitly that "URI persistence is a matter of policy and commitment on the part of the URI owner." What more could we say? Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Everything should be made as simple as http://nwalsh.com/ | possible, but no simpler.
Received on Friday, 15 October 2004 19:38:06 UTC