- "All documents, views and metadata at all significant levels of granularity and composition should be available in the best formats practical from their own permanent hierarchical URIs.”
As someone with more than a passing interest in legal and regulatory publishing I am in violent agreement with this.
2 comments:
Dear Sean,
As Rick mentions in his article, there is nothing new in what he wrote. Really.
In Italy, a solution for this has been officially in use since 2001.
Just check (in English):
http://www.nir.it/stdoc/urn/urn-nir-13b-eng_.doc
Based on their experience, several countries decided to propose the creation of a specific URN namespace for legal resources, the "urn:lex" namespace:
http://www.stf.gov.br/arquivo/sijed/22.pdf
Cheers,
Fernando
Fernando,
Yes. Permanent names are good. This is commonly known. However, over the years I find myself believing less and less in non-HTTP-based alternative namespaces. URNs, DOIs etc. etc.
I am familiar with the arguments related to registries, longevity ownership etc. but it does appear that communities are voting with their browsers and insisting that "names" be on the web, of the web and - at an absolute minimum - GETable.
Sean
Post a Comment