Hugh Glaser wrote:
Wow. A couple of great messages.
Interestingly (for me) I read Dan's message as not being antagonistic to the minting of URIs; rather as an excellent
discussion of some of the issues.
I read Dan's comments similarly. Minting URIs should obviously be easy
and encouraged, particularly at the moment where we still don't have
enough URIs for things! :)
And within the context of the web as a whole, URIs will break. That is a
given. But within a specific community of practice we might reasonably
ask whether we can do better? I don't necessarily mean the LOD
community, and am instead thinking about the contexts of specific
industries or communities.
The scholarly publishing industry is a useful example. The wider
endeavour of attempting to tie together the worlds scholarly literature
to allow a stable basis for "building on the shoulders of giants", has
meant that that community has adopted practices to try and encourage
stability of linking that works within the web architecture: redirection
services supported/funded by that community.
This gives local stability within a wider context that is more unstable,
i.e. the shifting sands of the web at large.
I think its reasonable to wonder whether elements of the Linked Data
cloud might eventually become similarly "shored up". I think
understanding the wider issues and recognising the needs of individual
communities is useful.
But that doesn't, and shouldn't, stop us from churning out URIs wherever
we need 'em ;)
Cheers,
L.
--
Leigh Dodds
Talis Platform Programme Manager
e: [email protected]
w: http://www.talis.com/platform
w: http://www.ldodds.com/blog
