 |
 |
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 > >