- From: Riccardo Albertoni via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2018 13:30:46 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Thank @makxdekkers for your comment. If I have correctly interpreted your message you are **not** in favour of the requirement behind my modelling attempt, namely the need to mention both a) the authority that defined the identifier scheme (DOI foundation), and b) the authority responsible for assigning and maintaining identifiers using that scheme (IEEE), as it was suggested by @smrgeoinfo. @smrgeoinfo Have I misinterpreted your suggestion? I've found @makxdekkers' motivations convincing, I also guess that similar considerations might hold for other identifier schemes. So I have included your motivations for not representing (b) in [example 7](https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/wiki/DCAT-Identifiers#representing--http-dereferenceable-secondary-identifier). -- GitHub Notification of comment by riccardoAlbertoni Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/53#issuecomment-441368113 using your GitHub account
Received on Saturday, 24 November 2018 13:30:48 UTC