W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > September 2013

Re: Link rot in Supreme Court decisions

From: Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 10:45:20 -0400
Cc: "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, Herbert van de Sompel <hvdsomp@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <A569D94C-C273-4E96-905D-C3D3EFFC89C6@la-grange.net>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Mark Nottingham [2013-09-23T21:50]:
> I'm sure some here will enjoy / be horrified by this.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/24/us/politics/in-supreme-court-opinions-clicks-that-lead-nowhere.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&_r=0

horrified by the tracking link ;) :p
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/24/us/politics/in-supreme-court-opinions-clicks-that-lead-nowhere.html

That said:

* Identifier
* Actual content
* Duplication
  - Location
  - Rights

Many things which are published on papers are extremely resistant to time, because of the third property, aka duplicated in many places apart from each other. In addition to that, libraries have a special status with regards to the law on keeping and circulate copies of a work.

On the Web, there are cache systems but not really with an archiving policy. And we have the issue of most of the time what is identified is what/where is stored. Practical for fresh information, catastrophic for the fabric of time. In an aesthetics of the Web, rust is spreading quite quickly.

In addition to that, the identifier is dependent on the location owner (domain name).

-- 
Karl Dubost
http://www.la-grange.net/karl/



Received on Tuesday, 24 September 2013 14:45:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:59 UTC