Hi,
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 02:30, McDonald, Stephen
<Steve.McDonald_at_tufts.edu> wrote:
> How about a counter-example? Try www.digital.com. Digital Equipment
> Corporation used to be very important.
Absolutely, and a good example, too, of what happens with identifiers
in the future. The thing is, though, that identifiers will change over
time, just like everything else. They will evolve, if you like. I see
it all the time where some cluster start using one identifier for a
certain thing while other clusters use another. They're bound together
using multiple identifiers, and over time one will be "stronger" than
the other. Remember those early days of everybody trying to figure out
Google's formula for relevancy ranking? Same thing.
In other words, identifiers will change with the times, and
www.digital.com would probably not be used anymore. This is why
distributed identity management services, such as www.subj3ct.com is
so important.
> You seem to be arguing that the best URI is a URI controlled by the
> referent party itself.
That argument is really only applicable in the now. Over time that
argument is moot.
> Do you have any suggestions on what should
> happen when that party stops being able to control it?
The static nature of current URIs for identities is a problem the
immediate future hasn't focused on, and it will create trouble unless
we have an infra-structure than can deal with it. I'm hoping we can
all agree on something, because it's again vital for future computing
in the semantic space.
And now, just imagine, if that infra-structure lived in the library
world? Beautiful.
Regards,
Alex
--
Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
--- http://shelter.nu/blog/ ----------------------------------------------
------------------ http://www.google.com/profiles/alexander.johannesen ---
Received on Fri Oct 30 2009 - 16:59:09 EDT