W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2010

Re: persistence solutions summary

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 14:33:28 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTim5JSe0Ty-s3OMAzdhonJUHZt9kWjZk428vArUY@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-tag@w3.org
I guess I can say a bit more about the problem, and try to head off
Larry...  also I can link this to ISSUE-50, as I should have before...

(Looking at http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/50
I see that I am sort of repeating myself:
sorry, I'm still trying to come up with a clear and concise formulation.)

Persistence of content is not the issue here.  Mostly this is the
domain of forces that can take care of themselves: the scholarly
record, the legal and legislative records, and so on.  Persistence of content is
implemented by safeguarding and, more importantly I think,
replication, as when copies of a book are acquired by many different

Persistence of access is also not the issue, if the access is being
done by a person.  Take the full reference (title, author, year,
keywords, etc.), check libraries, check search engines, ask your
friends, post a reward, and so on.  Copies come and go at different
locations, and the original publisher may be long gone, but if it's
important its current location(s) should be tracked in *some* index
or catalog and you should be able to find it.  (The catalogs should
themselves be safeguarded and replicated of course.) Or when you
do find it without the help of a catalog, you should be able to tell
a catalog where it is now.

The problem in question here is not access but *automated access* to
artifacts, given that copies come and go in various locations and
are under stewardship that often can't be predicted or coordinated.

The ideal outcome would be actionable references (hyperlinks) in the
permanent record that are considered a good bet for actionability in
the future.

This is not a particularly difficult technical problem.  The TAG-level
issue is figuring out what constitutes "best practice" and encouraging
any changes that might be in order. My evidence that there is an issue
is the continuing
moral competition between http: , URN, handle/DOI, and
none-of-the-above (traditional reference), each of which has merits
and could be made to work, but none of which in my opinion is a
complete solution at present.


On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org> wrote:
> Some thoughts on persistence for our upcoming discussion... these are
> some of my talking points, I don't expect this document to be totally
> clear.
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/06/persistence-teaser.html
> Jonathan
Received on Friday, 4 June 2010 18:34:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:34 UTC