- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 12:27:38 -0500
- To: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>
- Cc: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
Another story to add to this thread http://iphylo.blogspot.com/2011/01/demise-of-phthirapteraorg-and-perils-of.html which refers to http://blogs.nature.com/mfenner/2009/02/17/interview-with-geoffrey-bilder which I will read soon, promise... Persistence of a name is orthogonal to persistence of content. Many documents have persisted on the web without having a consistent URI over time. And as DURI makes clear it is possible to ensure that the meaning of a name is preserved even after the referent perishes. These two discussions should be disentangled to the extent possible. Jonathan On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com> wrote: > > Le 20 janv. 2011 à 11:38, Larry Masinter a écrit : >> Why are web sites abandoned? Because the person or organization >> cannot or does not want to maintain it any more. Any approach to >> this problem has to take into account the economics: who pays >> for perpetual care? > > Yes definitely. > Multiple copies increase the chances of survival. In the physical world, we often loose the source after a while. For example, the initial carved wood for printing this drawing, but there are so many copies distributed across the world, that the chances of survival exist. > > For Web sites, there is the issue of the unique copy of the site. > (note that museum curators have similar issues with multimedia artists. Sometimes it is more important to have a description and source code of the performance more than the physical artifacts of this performance.) > > -- > Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/ > Developer Relations & Tools, Opera Software > > >
Received on Thursday, 20 January 2011 17:28:06 UTC