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

Re: ORCID no longer relevant?

From: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 10:57:45 -0400
Message-ID: <CAGnGFMJ5fvAe7zSWN1fWV2GYE0Eph8bw5kX6=yJAJd1QhtDyxw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Cc: public-lod@w3.org
Remember it took a while for DOIs to become linked-data-friendly.
I suspect ORCID has limited staff that is swamped with work and LD is not a
priority for them.
I say give them a year or two to get up to speed and in the meantime
continue to submit bug reports.

It's not clear to me whether they identify profiles or people (or something
else). Might be a good idea to figure that out before using the URIs in RDF.

Jonathan

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
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2013 14:58:19 UTC

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