One reason persistent IDs are better than persistent URLs is that you
can Google them. You see this with DOIs: it's true that there is a
well-known resolution service that you can use for DOIs if you're so
inclined, but actually a simple web-search for, say, 10.1144/SP343.22
will get you what you need. Same for ISBNs.
On 14 January 2011 20:29, Kyle Banerjee <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> This attitude makes sense only if you are used to very bad “persistent
>>
>>> URL” systems. A URI is an identifier. Making it persistent is our job.
>> Using a different identifier scheme won’t make our job easier.
>>
> I totally agree with all these statements as well as with the sentiment that
> the approach I advocate is far from optimal.
>
>>
> My basic philosophy is that: 1) the greatest weakness in any system can be
> found in the carbon-based liveware it depends on (i.e. people act like
> people) ; 2) you can totally count on the second law of thermodynamics (the
> entropy of a closed system always increases); and 3) there is too much work
> to go around.
>
>>
> Translated for the case at hand, this means: 1) people will inevitably not
> have enough time to do it right; 2) Data get more complicated and less
> consistent; 3) The problems aren't going to be fixed. As a result,
> methods/systems need to be engineered accordingly. This makes our job hard,
> but that's employment security for us as that's where we contribute value to
> the equation.
>
>
>> can you give a practical example? I can see embedding an id somewhere in a
>> digital file, and then creating a link to it as part of the indexing
>> process, but what about external content that we have no control over... yet
>> are expected to reference in a consistent way?
>>
>
>
>> As you observe, reality is messy. With regards to externally referenced
> content, the options are limited. Ideally, the provider embeds their own
> identifier either because they just do it, or they were convinced of the
> value of doing so.
>
>>
> The reason I favor not being too prescriptive of syntax is that identifiers
> are insanely useful and if you ask people to do anything they don't
> understand or want to mess with, you'll inevitably find they ignore you
> because they have too many other things to worry about. For maximum
> compliance, barriers need to be low as possible.
>
>>
> But to get back to the example, let's suppose they don't provide any kind of
> identifier no matter how much you bug them. Guess what the resolution
> service provider's chances are of being informed if they move all the
> content or even worse, change the system that serves the content?
>
>>
> Has anyone thought through, or put into practice, using Apache mod_rewrite
>> tables for this simple "redirect one URL to another" use case?
>>
>
> Unless the URLs being directed to can be predicted from the source URLs (an
> assumption that is only safe in certain types of closed systems), this is
> just a different type of resolution service that suffers from all the same
> issues as purls and handles.
>
> To summarize this long email into a single sentence, you'll notice the ideas
> that work the best and prove the most adaptable in the long run are simple
> and compelling.
>
>>
> kyle
>
>
|