4 ms·
"Immutable URLs" already exist, they're called URNs [1] and it's a standard since 1997. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Resource_Name http://en.wikipe
by alberth 14y ago
"Immutable URLs" already exist, they're called URNs [1] and it's a standard since 1997.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Resource_Name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Resource_Name
- dvanduzer 14y agoA URN is still a pointer. An ISBN is not the book.
- alberth 14y ago"Immutable URLs " Is a poor headline then. It should read instead as "immutable content" since the OP intends to never have the content a URL points too to never be lost or changed
- vy8vWJlco 14y agoI think people are re-discovering/re-inventing Berners-Lee's semantic web and "linked data" descriptions (having the epiphany on their own) in part because Berners-Lee, for all his excitement, often fails at presenting the very basic idea, and I think it's because he takes the idea of a static URI for granted. By using a URI like a globally-unique primary key - a symbolic link - into "the database of the web," in place of the content itself (not just as a pointer to a the next page page with cats) you can begin to use all of the web as the data set and something like XPath/XQuery as the query language. Before any of that can happen, people need to really accept that URIs/URLs can't change their semantic content and rarely-if-ever go away. That's a big problem with the current approaches to displaying content: the references they generate are presumed to be forgettable.