Re: [whatwg] Link rot is not dangerous (was: Re: Annotating structured data that HTML has nosemanticsfor)

2009-05-16 Thread Toby A Inkster
On 15 May 2009, at 17:20, Manu Sporny wrote: The argument that link rot would cause massive damage to the semantic web is just not true. Even if there is minor damage caused, it is fairly easy to recover from it, as outlined above. I was talking about this recently somewhere (can't

[whatwg] Link rot is not dangerous (was: Re: Annotating structured data that HTML has nosemanticsfor)

2009-05-15 Thread Manu Sporny
Kristof Zelechovski wrote: Therefore, link rot is a bigger problem for CURIE prefixes than for links. There have been a number of people now that have gone to great lengths to outline how awful link rot is for CURIEs and the semantic web in general. This is a flawed conclusion, based on the

Re: [whatwg] Link rot is not dangerous (was: Re: Annotating structured data that HTML has nosemanticsfor)

2009-05-15 Thread Kristof Zelechovski
I understand that there are ways to recover resources that disappear from the Web; however, the postulated advantage of RDFa you can go see what it means simply does not hold. The recovery mechanism, Web search/cache, would be as good for CURIE URL as for domain prefixes. Creating a redirect is