- From: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>
- Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2012 19:21:37 -0500
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Cc: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> wrote: > For myself, I've found the issue of persistence come into more clarity when considered in the context of > > "persistence of references to documents" > (vs. persistence of references to other things) > and in particular the discussion topics raised in > > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/evolution/Identifiers.html > and > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/evolution/References.html Agreed. > if you consider an RDF triple as a "protocol element" which uses URIs as "specifications" of what the subject, object, and predicate mean. > If we had persistent URIs, would we use them instead of full citations in W3C specifications? We would use them in addition to full citations, I think. The persistent URI is supposed to help future automated agents, while the human readable part helps people to know what is being sought, which is useful for a variety of reasons, including manual backup in case the persistent URI fails, and sanity checking any retrieved result. The more interesting question for me is whether a conscientious archiver of RDF would use persistent URIs (should they come into existence) without full citations to the referenced documents (URI documentation). I don't think this sounds wise, but I don't know - giving a full citation for each URI occurring free in an RDF document sounds quite onerous. I am not currently aware of anyone attempting to curate RDF for the permanent record, but this is the conundrum that got me interested in the persistent URI question in the first place. Not that no one else is thinking about this - see e.g. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lld/2011Apr/0066.html Jonathan > Larry > > >
Received on Monday, 9 January 2012 00:52:22 UTC