code-research-object

Thanks for the reply and the links. The approach taken by Robust links is close to what I had in mind in regards to actually archiving the content. Looks like its a good solution to content drift and it's more passive than webcite. The timestamp benefit is also great. Maybe you could also include some sort of hash on the local end so maybe users could see at a glance if the nearest archive differs at all. Of course that's limited since it uses external archives and might not work with dynamically generated pages. I'll have to check out your comment [0], which seems like a lot of thought went into it, and the research paper. [0]: https://github.com/mozillascience/code-research-object/issue...

DOIs work for referencing resources because someone, e.g. a scholarly publisher, has a self-interest in making sure that DOI-based links keep working. They put a concerted effort in making that happen. When referencing "web at large" resources that reside on any kind of web server out there, the admin of that web server is typically not very interested in putting work in to keep links working. Hence, the person putting a link to a "web at large" resource in, or the platform on which such link is published, caries the burden to keep the link working. Our Robust Links work (http://robustlinks.mementoweb.org/) is all about how that can be done. As someone in this thread says, it involves "metadata". But not the kind of metadata that's mentioned in his post; it's all more webbie than that. Note that link rot is not the only problem for "web a