Hola,
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 20:57, Bernhard Eversberg <ev_at_biblio.tu-bs.de> wrote:
> URIs are bad identifiers, for one reason: URIs always contain
> verbal components, and words (names are words too) - sooner or later - get
> changed.
http://cc.no/457349856987429834
No, no words in there. They can be if you want to, or you can take
them out if you feel like it. And, you know, it really doesn't matter.
Even if there are several distinct words in www.wikipedia.org, people
always seems to get there. And when we're talking about automated
systems, this means even less. Get a word wrong or get a single digit
in your number wrong, and you're still wrong. This is why
resolvability is not only a great thing, but *solves* the issue you're
here fearing.
> Also, the syntax of an URI might be valid for less than
> eternity.
Same can be said about the English language and numbers in general.
URNs are also URIs, so choose that if you're concerned. I doubt very
much URNs will face the technical challenges you just raised. (Mind
you, look to ISBN for a good laugh at how stable and great a number
system is)
...
> And Alex: as long as we have to manage physical items in libraries,
> and objects like documents, we need records to represent and describe
> them. Or how else would you suggest to do that?
A record is a remnant of RDBMS and card cataloging. The whole idea
that an items' context can live in a single record removed from the
rest of the world is not only naiive, but outright silly. If FRBR
teaches you at least *one* thing, it is that complex models do not
live in simple boxes.
Regards,
Alex
--
Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
--- http://shelter.nu/blog/ ----------------------------------------------
------------------ http://www.google.com/profiles/alexander.johannesen ---
Received on Tue Oct 27 2009 - 06:12:28 EDT