- From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
- Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 18:01:23 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
I'm acutely aware that we've already had five F2F sessions on persistence, and that the ball is in my court to produce a document (ACTION-478), and I haven't, yet. But this is hard. It took the print world 400 years or so to get the problem of reliable reference worked out - it's important to be persistent :). Since we didn't get to talk about this in June I would appreciate a little of the TAG's time next week to look at it again. I propose that the goal of the session should be, as Noah has been promoting, to prepare a 'product page' for work on persistence. If by some miracle we get that far, you can give me feedback (time bounded) on ideas about what a document might contain. I think I have one new idea on the subject since last time, but probably best to talk about that at lunch or break. (1) Product page. The product would be a document (finding?), one that would fulfill ACTION-478 on Jonathan Rees to Prepare a second draft of a finding on persistence of references, to be based on decision tree from Oct. 2010 F2F. Assigned: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/10/20-minutes#item01 (There is another possible "product" here, which is facilitation of changes to standards or infrastructure, if this turns out to be both desirable and practical - thus the idea of a "domain name persistence" workshop, see ACTION-351.) How would we like the world to be different? . Ideally there would be persistent references that were first-class on the web. If not, we should have a convincing explanation of why not. . There would be more reason and common sense surrounding the persistent reference question What audiences? . W3C management; linked data community; "memory institutions". (Note that this question originally came out of SWHCLSIG.) (Had we finished this sooner, the audience might have included Datacite and ORCID.) . Users of references (those who would put them in documents) . Providers of assignment and resolution services yielding metadata and/or content. . Others struggling with persistent reference on the Web. (2) Things to maybe put in the document. Help me shorten this list, and/or find gaps. - Definition(s) of persistence; why important - An overview for those interested in evaluating persistence solutions, either as users or providers. . Assignment, resolution, conflict mediation . Adaptation, succession . Attempt to dispel myths & misconceptions, and provide a no-nonsense way to think about it. - How to do a threat analysis . Collisions . Technical failure or corruption . Organizational failure (orphaning) or corruption . Inability to adapt to change . Squatting, commercial capture, organized attack . Specification unclear / fragile definition of "correct" . Reference unfamiliar or not actionable - Discuss tradeoffs around syntaxes and protocols . pros and cons of uses of different schemes, domain names . "decision tree" from Feb F2F - Look at a few examples . urn:ietf:rfc:2648 . http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224 . ark:... (see ACTION-121) - Look at some tactics that are gaining traction, e.g.: . provide actionable forms of nonactionable identifiers . web archiving as an alternative to persistent reference . just assert persistence in http: space (independent of DNS doubts) - What can we conclude about design design and execution of new systems . Persistent reference *is* possible... sometimes resolution comes later . Invest authority in a constitution, not in an an organization ? . Get constitution recognized as widely as possible ? Attempt to answer the ISSUE-50 question, is http: any worse than any other syntax for this purpose. (I.e. are all the problems with http: inherent in *any* solution, or are some unique.) Prior TAG discussion of persistence - June 2011 (no F2F session) Persistence readings - email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Jun/0009.html - Feb 2011 (Cambridge F2F) Persistence of references - F2F discussion http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/09-minutes#item06 Persistent Reference Interventions - draft (this captures said 'decision tree') http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/02/intervention.html - Oct 2010 (Mountain View F2F) Domain Name Persistence - F2F discussion http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/10/20-minutes#item01 'Slides' presented at F2F http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/10/persistent-reference-slides.pdf 'Decision tree' drawn on whiteboard http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/10/PersistenceTreeWhiteBoard.jpg Persistent Reference on the Web - draft for ACTION-444, closed http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/persistent-reference/ - June 2010 (London F2F) Domain name persistence - F2F discussion, with Helen Hockx-Yu and Kevin Ashley http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/06/07-minutes.html#item04 Matrix on persistence solutions http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/06/persistence-teaser.html Persistence solutions summary - JAR email http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2010Jun/0036.html - March 2010 (Cambridge F2F) Persistent naming - F2F discussion http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/03/25-minutes.html#item04 On URIs and trust - note by JAR http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/03/uris-and-trust.html - Dec 2009 (Cambridge F2F) Persistent domains - F2F discussion http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/09-minutes.html#item03 - March 2009 (Redwood Shores F2F) Discussion of ISSUE-50 - F2F discussion http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/03/03-tagmem-minutes.html#item05 See also - Feb 2011, Review of TAG issues related to "URI meaning" http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2011Feb/0150.html
Received on Sunday, 4 September 2011 22:02:20 UTC