- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 10:43:15 -0400
- To: "Reto Bachmann-Gmür" <reto.bachmann@trialox.org>
- Cc: "carmen r" <_@whats-your.name>, "semantic-web at W3C" <semantic-web@w3.org>, "Eric Miller" <em@zepheira.com>
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <reto.bachmann@trialox.org> wrote: > Alan Ruttenberg said the following on 2008-10-15 16:03: >> 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. > This is possible only if a special purl-uri scheme is used, if the uri > of the term is an http-uri and something went wrong with the domain > renewal, semantic web agents would consider the triples of the > casino-site as autoritative about the terms. I think the ownership of the domain and the running of the servers would be decoupled. That way it's inexpensive to keep the domain name alive (it ought be managed by a trust). The usual situation is that these are not decoupled and so the pressures that might cause a service provider to go away (e.g. lack of funds) would not impinge on the maintenance of the name (which is a matter of $10/year). -Alan
Received on Friday, 17 October 2008 14:43:51 UTC