W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-lld@w3.org > July 2010

Re: Institutional Identifier (I2) comments (was: RE: Institutional Identifier Re: [Digipres] NISO Seeking Feedback on ...)

From: Herbert Van de Sompel <hvdsomp@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 18:49:19 +0200
Cc: "public-xg-lld@w3.org" <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Message-Id: <569DC722-FC79-4646-B4C6-A105A5B00585@gmail.com>
To: "ZENG, MARCIA" <mzeng@kent.edu>

This is OK for me. But I think you should probably remove my:

"Obvious from where I stand what the answer is. "



On Jul 29, 2010, at 6:37 PM, ZENG, MARCIA wrote:

> Hi, all,
> Thanks Herbert to initiate the discussion and thank Ed to give a  
> final touch on the draft comments.
> Here is the text we are going to send.  If you have any suggestions,  
> please let me know by August 1st.
> Marcia
> P.S. FYI: The NISO Institutional Identifier (I2) is proposed as a  
> globally unique, robust, scalable and interoperable identifier with  
> the sole purpose of uniquely identifying institutions. The I2  
> consists of two parts:
>    * an identifier standard that includes the metadata needed to  
> uniquely identify the organization -- including documenting  
> relationships with other institutions that are critical for  
> establishing identity -- and
>     * a framework for implementation and use. [1]
> ------------------------------------------
> Comments on the NISO Institutional Identifier (I2) Working Group   
> Midterm Report[1]
> from members of the W3C Library Linked Data Incubator Group (LLD XG)  
> [2]
> Note: given the tight deadline, the comments have not been approved  
> by the group as a whole.
> 1 The I2 group should bring a Linked Data perspective into its next  
> phase of work.
> 2.The Linked Data perspective may require the I2 WG to revisit its  
> purposes in order to align its ‘information supply chain’ with  
> linked data. (Currently #2 purpose is: "Identify institutions  
> engaged in the selection, purchase, licensing, storage, description,  
> management, and delivery of information (“information supply  
> chain”).”) [2]
> 3 URI should be considered in the final version of metadata.  
> (currently the report states that "The initial version of the  
> metadata did not include the URI. This element will become part of  
> the final version of the metadata if it is deemed a valuable  
> addition to the standard.”) [2]
> 4. For the framework for implementation and use part, the spec  
> should at least:
> (*) acknowledge that these identifiers will be "actualized" as HTTP  
> URIs.
> (*) suggest how to HTTP URI-ize the identifiers;
> (*) decide whether those HTTP URIs are for info or non-info  
> resources and show the consequences. Obvious from where I stand what  
> the answer is.
> (*) HTTP URI patterns for "APIs" that leverage the identifiers.
> (*) recommend that data be made available using RDF serializations  
> (rdf/xml, RDFa, turtle) when URLs are resolved.
> (*) provide guidance on what existing and/or new RDF vocabularies  
> should be used when publishing rdf data.
> [1] http://www.niso.org/workrooms/i2/midtermreport/
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/

Herbert Van de Sompel
Digital Library Research & Prototyping
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Research Library
tel. +1 505 667 1267
Received on Thursday, 29 July 2010 16:49:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:54 UTC