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: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 21:46:50 -0400
Cc: Herbert Van de Sompel <hvdsomp@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A445C3BD-4F83-43B1-AA17-8BB23D859060@la-grange.net>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>

Many things collapsed into too short terms

Larry Masinter [2013-09-25T10:37]:
> to archive documents for a long time, you need more than just link stability.

I didn't talk about link stability, but about the collapse in between links (accessing/transferring the bits) and identifiers (URIs) with an additional issue about the domain name part (system based on capitalistic ownership)

> You need document formats designed for archive,

HTML is not a that bad format if not too invaded by JS. There are certainly different types of documents. Definitely bits which are applications, stored in DB, JS code is a lot more fragile than simple data stored in a plain text format (HTML, XML, JSON, etc.) 

> and you need a storage system that can guarantee integrity for the lifetime of the information archived.

Definitely no on this one. There is a mix in between the maintaining alive the integrity of data and the integrity of the support. Paper is a support which is working quite well on the scale of the centuries, but sometimes monks were copying data from one book to the other and it's partly how very old text survived (and got errors, embellishments, rewritings). In the digital world, you can perfectly assume to copy the data again and again, exactly the way I do for my own data (I started around 20 years ago with external HD which was barely 70 Mb and now it is 1 Tb.) The issue of the digital world, the need for power and the reliability of the copy. :)

Karl Dubost

Received on Monday, 30 September 2013 01:46:58 UTC

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