- From: Herbert Van de Sompel <hvdsomp@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:00:51 -0700
- To: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>
- Cc: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, "<public-lld@w3.org>" <public-lld@w3.org>
On Dec 12, 2011, at 18:27, "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org> wrote: > 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. These kind of non-HTTP identifiers are hugely unpopular now, as far as I understand, but info URI was created to address exactly problem that Karen brings up. Just have a look at the intro of the RFC that specifies info URI: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4452.txt Cheers Herbert Van de Sompel > > 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 03:56:21 UTC