[topicmapmail] Re: Document Object Identifiers/CrossRef

[Anthony B. Coates]

** Reply to message from "W. Eliot Kimber" <eliot@isogen.com> on Sat, 07 Sep
2002 08:11:26 -0500

> From the standpoint of publishers, I think there is value in having a
> name-based addressing mechanism that matches both the requirement and
> expectation that "persistent" names are being used--if I'm publishing a
> scholarly work that I want to be findable and usable (through any
> references it makes) 5, 10, or 100 years out, I want some assurance that
> the names I'm using will resolve appropriately in the future. 

In the database world, there is this idea of "natural keys" for information.
While you can design a database schema in which every surname has
a matching ID, with all references based on the ID, you can also just use
the surname as a key.  That can have some issues when a surname
changes, but the advantage of natural keys is that they are very robust
when it comes to location the information you want.  You don't have to worry
about orphaned IDs & such.

There is a sense in which URIs are like IDs.  On the Web, the nearest
analogue to natural keys are (i) using a search engine to locate pages,
and (ii) using Dublin Core metadata.  It is worth wondering, then, whether
the fragility of URIs is more the fragility of using URIs as the persistent
addressing mechanism, when something based on natural keys would
be better.  Just a thought, anyway.

	Cheers,
		Tony.
====
Anthony B. Coates, Information & Software Architect
mailto:abcoates@TheOffice.net
MDDL Editor (Market Data Definition Language)
http://www.mddl.org/