OK, but how does that fit into how we're actually using URLs today, like how would this change the web? If you browse my product info page, I don't want you linking to a versioned document, in general. In the cases I'm thinking of off the top of my head, I'm not sure when you'd ever want people linking/copying version-specific URLs that somewhat negate the point of updating the page in the first place.
Or perhaps I don't understand "Why can't we look at data that is published on the Internet is the same manner".
The web of today is based completely on "this named thing references this other named thing". When we create links to other content we are most definitely doing so in the context of the content as it is at the time of linking, not some future state. What happens if that data is waaay different or missing? Dead links we call them.
It terms of commerce this is somewhat analogous to bait-and-switch.
In this thread I'm mainly referring digital content as an end-to-itself, not of digital content as a reference to physical products.
As for referencing physical products, be they automobiles or paintings, deriving a direct cryptographic hash isn't possible, but GUIDs are. Cars already have serial numbers. Paintings have signed certificates from experts.
If I'm on a website buying a used car I definitely want the price list to be linking to the GUID, that is, to a reference of the object itself.
Or perhaps I don't understand "Why can't we look at data that is published on the Internet is the same manner".