update of BP 28 and 29

[pwin]

updated BP 28 and 29

[newtoncalegari]

Thanks for working on that, Peter 😃
I noticed that you suggested a different benefit to the BP 28, the "Long-term availability of accessible data".
We have been classifying the BPs according the following 8 benefits: Reuse, Discoverability, Interoperability, Linkability, Processability, Comprehension, Trust, Access.
Do you think it would be necessary to add the benefit you suggested or the BP28 could be classified into one of those current benefits?

[pwin]

Hi Newton

I think that it is important to stress long-term availability. The whole idea of
persistence in URIs is that they don't disappear and that any changes are gracefully
handled. Therefore I see this as the main benefit from the BP.... We could make it a
one-worder - "longevity" or something like that, perhaps.

However, that's just me butting in. If you disagree then I will just go with your
decision.

Peter

[cgueret]

Hi Peter, Newton,

My 2cents is that "Long-term availability of accessible data" is a the combined outcome of all the BPs related to preservation. The 28 is a part of it focusing on ensuring that the content serialised can be read in the future. I'd suggest to stick to "Reuse" to it. And eventually to consider removing the mention to cURL as part of the test. I agree it is relevant to verify that the content returned is of the type expected by this would better fit another BP. BP28 is HTTP agnostic, it's just about how the data is persisted.

Christophe

[newtoncalegari]

Hi @cgueret, thanks for your input in this discussion.

I liked your suggestion and we could assign the "Reuse" benefit to the BP and we can include the " 'Long-term availability of accessible data' is a the combined outcome of all the BPs related to preservation" to the Data Preservation description section.

@pwin would you be ok with this?