W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-publ-wg@w3.org > August 2017

Re: For your interest: Persistence Statements: Describing Digital Stickiness

From: Jodi Schneider <jschneider@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 21:48:55 -0500
Message-ID: <CAP5TGf92LbcpWA-_y=Wx1WA7dm=ZhP=agav+1G2gqxPHn15pRg@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Wood <david.wood@ephox.com>
Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
This article does seem relevant to me, particularly to the document
identity question discussed earlier. The question of persistence seems to
me to have less to do with "appropriate copy" and more to do with
indicating how dynamic an item is and how likely a link is to break. Best
practices on these topics could be relevant for this group.

-Jodi

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 8:49 PM, David Wood <david.wood@ephox.com> wrote:

> Hi Ivan,
>
> This is very interesting; an approach to limiting and describing the
> "appropriate copy" problem in Library Science. I would think this is quite
> relevant to the WG.
>
> The WG charter explicitly states that "new metadata vocabularies" are out
> of scope for development, so using existing ones to address the "unique
> identification" requirement for Web Publications is useful.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> On 16 August 2017 at 19:14, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> I just found this article:
>>
>> Persistence Statements: Describing Digital Stickiness
>> https://datascience.codata.org/articles/10.5334/dsj-2017-039/
>>
>> "In this paper we present a draft vocabulary for making “persistence
>> statements.” […] Scholars increasingly use scientific and cultural assets
>> in digital form, but choosing which among many objects to cite for the long
>> term can be difficult. There are few well-defined terms to describe the
>> various kinds and qualities of persistence that object repositories and
>> identifier resolvers do or don’t provide. Given an object’s identifier, one
>> should be able to query a provider to retrieve human- and machine-readable
>> information to help judge the level of service to expect and help gauge
>> whether the identifier is durable enough, as a sort of long-term bet, to
>> include in a citation. "
>>
>> This is really just a FYI, and I do not think we should act on it in the
>> WG work, except maybe in the best practices note at some point, related to
>> metadata.
>>
>> One slight technical consequence for us may be that when we get down to
>> the details on how we would encode metadata entries, we should make it sure
>> that we can properly make statements on identifiers that we list in the
>> manifest (ie, we should be able to qualify a specific identifier). That may
>> be useful beyond what this article says.
>>
>> If you guys feel it is worthwhile, I can add this to our reading list.
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>> ----
>> Ivan Herman, W3C
>> Publishing@W3C Technical Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> mobile: +31-641044153 <+31%206%2041044153>
>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>>
>>
>
Received on Friday, 18 August 2017 02:49:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:49:06 UTC