W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webarch-comments@w3.org > October to December 2004

Re: KD012 URI Persistence

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,

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:26:48 UTC