Re: [semanticweb] Purl.org offline?

I agree. It seems to me we could enjoy the benefit of peer-to-peer in the
synchronization of the purl mirrors. Do we need to deploy this for everyone,
though? Perhaps having a user level peer-to-peer *as an option* on top of a
standard http based retrieval could combine the best of both worlds.
-Alan

On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

> Peer-to-peer networks deal with this problem (and others) quite
> effectively.
>
> (Michael Hausenblas pointed this out to me.)
>
> On 15/10/2008 15:03, "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I believe that the model we should look to is the linux distribution
> system.
> > There are a number of mirrors each of which are coequal. On can
> explicitly
> > choose which site to use or have on randomly assigned. In a federation of
> > PURLs one site turned casino would be quickly removed from the list. I
> think
> > this is quite feasible to accomplish for PURL servers, have discussed
> this
> > with the developers, and hope to see a prototype some time in the near
> future.
> >
> > -Alan
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür
> > <reto.bachmann@trialox.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> carmen r said the following on 2008-10-14 15:28:
> >>> On Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:39:54AM +0100, Giovanni Tummarello wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Martin, all, yes,  it is a service that was planned,
> >>>>
> >>>> unfortunately the cache system we have is based on HBase, which is
> >>>> still in a very early stage and badly crashed on us recently. We're in
> >>>> the process of updating, restoring it etc.
> >>>> It will take some time but it is coming, will announce it when ready.
> >>>> (probably together with a simple library for transparent fallover)
> >>>>
> >>>> So a semantic web client could simply do an HTTP on the URL and if
> >>>> fails switch back to Sindice or whoever else wants to do that.
> >>>>
> >>>> I agree this service is badly needed. I dont think Semantic Web can be
> >>>> that interesting if a client doesnt mash or chains together several
> >>>> resources automatically, with the consequent dramatic chances of
> >>>> failure, thus the need for one or more backup servers.. (which however
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> i think its fundamental enough a need to warrant architectural
> consideration
> >>>
> >>> i mean on the level of HTTP.
> >>>
> >>> not saying HTTP should go away. probably some bblfish way of doing it
> >>> without inventing a new protocol (heck, Bittorrent still uses HTTP for
> >>> parts)
> >>>
> >>>
> >> If purl comes back up we are lucky, but maybe we could learn something
> >> anyway.
> >>
> >> Having names for fundamental terms based on the DNS system is a
> >> weakness. What will we do if purl.org <http://purl.org>  gets taken
> over by a
> >> casino site?
> >> Will we argue that the terms keep their meaning even if the casino site
> >> says something else? In my scifi post[1] I've scheduled this topic for
> >> 2015. Using hash-uri or other non-http uris have advantage of stability,
> >> but it's harder to look up the meaning, could we combine the approaches?
> >> should we have protocol independents terms with evolving meaning as in
> >> natural languages?
> >>
> >>> we need alternatives to the Google "we are your backup server" system
> >>>
> >> indeed.
> >>
> >> reto
> >>
> >> 1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2008Jan/0118.html
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>