W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lld@w3.org > December 2011

RE: A better solution for legacy IDs?

From: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 20:27:15 -0500
Message-ID: <52E301F960B30049ADEFBCCF1CCAEF590EA33CE2@OAEXCH4SERVER.oa.oclc.org>
To: "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, <public-lld@w3.org>
It's still reasonable to use "info" URIs (RFC 4451) despite fact that new "namespaces" are no longer being considered:

http://info-uri.info/registry/OAIHandler?verb=ListRecords&metadataPrefix=oai_dc


"info" URIs don't benefit from the HTTP protocol the way Linked Data "http" URIs are, but they call still be used in RDF to an identify an rdf:Resource/owl:Thing.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net]
> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 8:01 PM
> To: public-lld@w3.org
> Subject: Re: A better solution for legacy IDs?
> 
> Quoting Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>:
> 
> 
> >
> > Can you expand on 'too large'? You can fit breathtaking amounts of
> data on
> > a USB stick - or Web site - these days. What kind of size are we
> looking
> > at? Is the problem admin/social (eg. Decentralization expected) or
> > technical or a mix?
> 
> Dan, I didn't mean "large" in the "bytes" sense but in the sense of
> human effort to mint and maintain a unique property for each possible
> type of identifier. It just seems easier to me to have an "identifier"
> property (or graph) that is a single URI, but which takes the
> identifier as a value, along with a code giving the source/agency/etc.
> There are institution and organization codes that will probably cover
> most of the identifier-producing agencies. In non-linked data we often
> see things like "PMID:123456" or "eISSN:2344-8765". This would be the
> same, but would be an http URI. I realize that there isn't a great
> deal of overhead to minting a URI but my experience is that many folks
> will hesitate before doing so. Treating the legacy identifiers as
> values will probably get more uptake.
> 
> Admittedly, the edge cases will not be well controlled and we'll get
> some identifiers that are expressed in more than one way. That happens
> now in the pre-LD world; we'll have to live with that. But at least to
> have some agreement on a graph structure would be a step forward, IMO.
> 
> So, Tom, I think that answers your question: I'm mainly looking for a
> property/graph that will take values, but I will look more closely at
> the Freebase schema. Is it possible to add to the Freebase identifier
> hierarchy "at will"? Are there limitations on who can mint a new
> property? And for the Freebase namespaces that refer to an http URI
> elsewhere (like the LC catalog numbers), where is the connection made
> to the URI? I couldn't find that link.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> kc
> 
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >> Has anyone developed and published a good "legacy identifier graph"
> that
> > we could adopt? If not, would someone like to propose one?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> kc
> >>
> >> --
> >> Karen Coyle
> >> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net

> >> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> >> m: 1-510-435-8234
> >> skype: kcoylenet
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net

> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
> 
> 

Received on Tuesday, 13 December 2011 01:30:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 13 December 2011 01:30:08 GMT