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

Please ignore my earlier suggestion for Linked Data/NISO Institution
Identifiers. I made a wrong assumption.

 

As a more realistic proposal, I converted the NISO I2 metadata element
set to OWL (i2.owl) and mocked up some RDF for a sample institution that
could be stored in their registry (about.rdf). A UML class diagram for
the OWL is also attached. Here's how I suggest the institution
identifier behave according to Linked Data:

 

http://i2.niso.org/institution/1 (303 redirect to...)

http://i2.niso.org/institution/1/ (content-negotiate to...)

http://i2.niso.org/institution/1/default.html (A human-readable
representation)

http://i2.niso.org/institution/1/about.rdf (see the attached about.rdf)

 

I used a sequential number as the opaque institution ID and guessed on
the http://i2.niso.org/institution/ part. There are various details
worth quibbling about.

 

Sorry for the confusion.

 

Jeff

 

From: public-xg-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-lld-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of ZENG, MARCIA
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 12:38 PM
To: public-xg-lld@w3.org
Subject: Re: Institutional Identifier (I2) comments (was: RE:
Institutional Identifier Re: [Digipres] NISO Seeking Feedback on ...)

 

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/