W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > March 2013

Re: ORCID no longer relevant?

From: John Erickson <olyerickson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 08:06:23 -0400
Message-ID: <CAC1Gg8TsbKbd7ZzAeDpD3SfKBpdF-f19aZK4ZZto8ki4hPrPDg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Cc: public-lod@w3.org
Regarding the specific question of the orcid.org proxy returning
correct http conneg results --- a must in order to be linked data
"savvy" --- a couple years ago a similar observation was made of
crossref.org and they remedied the situation nicely.

Since a few of the people involved in ORCID
<http://orcid.org/about/team> are familiar with the CrossRef.org
situation, maybe a similar result can happen?

John

On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 7:21 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
<soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> In my projects, we have been wanting to recommend using ORCID [1] as
> part of identifying authors and contributors. ORCID is receiving
> increasing attention in the scientific publishing community as it
> promises a unified way to identify authors of scientific publications.
>
>
> I was going to include an ex:orcid property on foaf:Agents in our
> specifications, perhaps as an owl:sameAs subproperty (I know, I
> know!).
>
> There's no official property for linking to a ORCID profile at the
> moment [5] - I would be careful about using foaf:account to the ORCID
> URI, as the ORCID identifies the person (at least in a scientific
> context), and not an OnlineAccount - has someone else tried a
> structure here?
>
>
>
> There are other long-standing issues in using ORCID in Linked Data:
>
>
> For one, the URI to use is unclear [2], but the form
> <http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718> is what is currently being
> promoted [3]:
>
>> The ORCID iD should always be expressed and stored as a URI: http://orcid.org/xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx (with the protocol (http://), and with hyphens in the number xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx).
>
> (Strangely this advise is not reflected on orcid.org itself)
>
>
> Another issue is that there is actually no RDF exposed from orcid.org [4].
>
>
> But the last issue is that if you request the ORCID URI with Accept:
> application/rdf+xml - then the REST API wrongly returns its own XML
> format - but still claims Content-Type application/rdf+xml.  The issue
> for this [5] has just been postponed 'for several months', even though
> it should be a simple fix.
>
>
> This raises the question if ORCIDs would still be relevant on the
> semantic web. Does anyone else have views, alternatives or
> suggestions?
>
>
>
> [1] http://orcid.org/
> [2] http://support.orcid.org/forums/175591-orcid-ideas-forum/suggestions/3641532
> [3] http://support.orcid.org/knowledgebase/articles/116780-structure-of-the-orcid-identifier
> [4] http://support.orcid.org/forums/175591-orcid-ideas-forum/suggestions/3283848
> [5] http://support.orcid.org/forums/175591-orcid-ideas-forum/suggestions/3291844
>
>
> --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
> School of Computer Science
> The University of Manchester
>



-- 
John S. Erickson, Ph.D.
Director, Web Science Operations
Tetherless World Constellation (RPI)
<http://tw.rpi.edu> <olyerickson@gmail.com>
Twitter & Skype: olyerickson
Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2013 12:06:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:30 UTC