Sketching Out Robust URLs in the Literature

For a while now, lots of scientific papers have included links to websites that provide important non-textual supplements to papers: large tables or images, software source code, and so on. My impression is that most people are aware that can be problematic. URLs tend to go stale after only a few years, and I suspect that this is especially true of the ones published in the scientific literature, since people spend a lot of time moving from institution to institution as postdocs. (It would be an interesting exercise to go through some set of papers on the arXiv and assess the half-life of a published URL.) But most people (rightly) don’t worry about these things much and we’re steadily building up a literature that, in many important aspects, has an expiration date.

It would be nice to do a bit better job of this. This would naturally, I think, be the responsibility of the journal publishers — they have an interest in the durability of their product, and they can enforce standards when it comes to these things. And indeed they seem to have converged on an “online supplement” / “electronic edition” model where online resources are alluded to in the published paper but no URL is given. I assume this is to give them the flexibility to change the URL in the future, which is something I can’t fault them for wanting to do. Who wants to commit to running a webserver at a specific domain name hosting specific files in the year 2060?

But the publishers don’t seem to insist that all important material be hosted by the journal. Source code, in particular, is often hosted at external sites. This makes sense: source code tends to get updated, and while it’d be valuable to host a static copy of code as it was used to create a published work, it’s likely more valuable have a changing website giving the latest information about and updates to that code. (If I had my druthers I’d also require that any paper giving the results of running any software had to publish the source to that software as well, but that’s not happening anytime soon.) So I can see where the publishers are coming from. They (rightly) don’t want to get into the business of hosting websites for random scientists’ projects.

So, how could we provide robust links in the literature to evolving content? We want something that will last even if the person in charge of a project changes institutions, or if a new person takes over a project, and ideally something that should last on a 50-year timescale. And it shouldn’t require scientists to have to know too much about web stuff. (But I don’t think you can get away with knowing nothing. If you’re publishing something in a paper you’re making a commitment to it and you should understand what you’re committing to.)

I think the simplest solution is to take an approach similar to that used by the PURL people. In that system, you register some kind of permanent URL and tell the registrar the “real” URL of your information. Requests for the permanent URL are forwarded to the real URL. And, vitally, if you have to move the “real” URL, you can do so without breaking the permanent URL.

It seems to me that it would make more sense, however, to do this in DNS, rather than with HTTP redirects as PURL does. You could have some toplevel site, let’s call it, and let people register (I came up with an astronomy-centric name for such a service that I  thought was good but, alas, it was a porn site.) The key here is that can be set to resolve to any IP address that you want, and if you can get a webserver under your control (not too much to ask, I think), then you can configure it to respond to requests for with your particular content. As with PURLs, if you need to move your hosting, you change the IP address and configure a new webserver. This difference makes the service much easier to run — all you need to do, at a minimum, is maintain control of the domain name and update your DNS records as needed. You don’t have to deal with traffic spikes caused by your registrants. A completely user-unfriendly implementation wouldn’t even need its own webserver.

Several elaborations can be envisaged:

You could also go into email hosting. A similar problem to broken URLs is broken email addresses — papers are published with the authors’ email addresses, and these often go bad as people move around. You could grant people and forward it to their current institutional address. (This looks a little classier than publishing your address in a paper.) And again as they move around, they could update the address that gets forwarded the mail. Because you have to run a forwarding mail server, this requires more effort to implement than the DNS system, but it’s not a big deal.

This latter bit, however, gets into all the usual tricky identity questions. When do you expire usernames? What do you do if your name changes? How are two people with the same name distinguished?

This latter issue is an annoying one in science. How do we distinguish papers published by different J Smiths? (Or P Williamses — not that I’m bitter.) How can you know that John Smith changed her name to Jane Smith? Is the J Smith at Institution A the same person as the J Smith at Institution B? Far too much insider knowledge is required to be able to answer these questions reliably. These are well-known to be tough issues to deal with. It’d be nice to see more effort to tackle them in the relatively small and well-behaved scientific circle, though. The arXiv is starting to make an effort, but a lot more people will need to get involved for it to really take off.

(The arXiv “author identifier” thing is what got me musing about this to begin with. There are two issues with their work that I’ve noticed so far. Firstly, of course, this is specific to arXiv. Nowadays most stuff appears on it, but I’m not sure how well it can scale. Secondly, for a paper to appear as “yours” in their author identifier list [e.g. mine], you have to be an “owner” of that paper, which typically only the first author is. They seem to want all authors to be listed as owners, and I can see how that is perhaps what makes the most sense formally, but practically I don’t think it happens much. Maybe community standards will change in that regard.)

(Also, in the course of reading about that feature, I noticed that the development and management of the arXiv are totally opaque. I think they’re motivated by a desire to not spend all their time dealing with crazy people, but I still find that very disappointing. Crazy people don’t care about the source code to arXiv, but the source completely closed, there are no ways for people to join in, and there isn’t even communication about the development plans! Not cool.)