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

Re: ORCID no longer relevant?

From: Dawson, Laura <Laura.Dawson@bowker.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 09:24:53 -0400
To: John Erickson <olyerickson@gmail.com>, Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
CC: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CD64A47E.253AB%Laura.Dawson@bowker.com>
Stian, whatever you discover, I'd be interested to know - ORCID numbers
are a subset of ISNI, and I'm on the ISNI board of directors. We'd want to
work in parallel.

On 3/12/13 8:06 AM, "John Erickson" <olyerickson@gmail.com> wrote:

>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/3641
>>532
>> [3] 
>>http://support.orcid.org/knowledgebase/articles/116780-structure-of-the-o
>>rcid-identifier
>> [4] 
>>http://support.orcid.org/forums/175591-orcid-ideas-forum/suggestions/3283
>>848
>> [5] 
>>http://support.orcid.org/forums/175591-orcid-ideas-forum/suggestions/3291
>>844
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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 13:25:30 UTC

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