[tm-pubsubj-comment] psi token in URIs [Re: More grumbling]

[Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>]

*Bernard Vatant

> | My view is that if publishers are really serious about PSIs, they
> | should own dedicated domains.

*Lars Marius Garshol
> That makes sense, but it's a completely different thing from requiring it...

There is no question of requirement. It's under "recommendation" in Steve'sproposal
anyway, and I don't think anyone is thinking about requirement there.

> | You would prefer then a recommended structure with psi folder, like
> |
> | http://anydomain.foo/psi/scope/subject.html
>
> No. I would prefer an unrestricted URI. Let people do whatever they
> want. They will, anyhow.

Of course some will. But is it because you know that people won't follow recommendations
that you don't make them?
Will not URIs with recommended structure emerge from the noise, or are you desperate to
the point to say that "dirty data float to the top" anyway and there is nothing to do
about it?

> * Bernard Vatant
> |
> | That is yet another story. Declaration of intention in 2 or 3
> | above. No, what I wish - but is it technically sustainable, and how,
> | that's the issue - is that the very structure and syntax of the URI
> | itself may identify it as a declared PSI with a good reliability -
> | it can't be 100% of course.
>
> It sounds to me like you are confusing the requirement and the
> solution.  Why must there be something in the URI?

I thought below argument was answering that.

> | So search engines (and humans as well) could easily retrieve
> | candidates PSI simply on the view of their URIs, and confirm that on
> | the view of required content and metadata in the resource.
>
> But it won't work!

Why? Don't you think that:

1. Search engines will be more likely to retrieve among relevant resources to a query on
"psi + apple"
http://psi.fruit.org/apple than http://foo.bar.com/xyz23? whatever metadata are found
under those?
2. Humans will be more likely to have a closer look at the first one than at the second
one?

> * Lars Marius Garshol
> |
> | I explained it below that statement: something that is meaningful to
> | humans is something humans are likely to want to change at some point.

Of course unstability of subjects and names will produce some noise. But I think the
trade-off is worth it.

> * Bernard Vatant
> |
> | Is it really an issue?
>
> Bernard, you really are unusually exasperating today.

Sorry about that ...

> Of course it is an issue!  We've just seen that demonstrated, as you
> yourself agreed.

I meant: are the consequences of that issue important enough to be put in the balance?

> | Remember "Big Oak Cross" and "Good PSIs never die" discussions ...
>
> What discussion was that?

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tm-pubsubj-comment/200203/msg00019.html

You were there :)