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: Jodi Schneider <jodi.schneider@deri.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 10:38:24 +0100
Cc: "public-xg-lld@w3.org" <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D1E9BFBC-BB5B-487D-9149-8351D038B0E9@deri.org>
To: "ZENG, MARCIA" <mzeng@kent.edu>

On 29 Jul 2010, at 17:37, 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] 

I think "included" would be more clear than "considered"

"The URI should be included in the final version of the metadata"

Is it useful to make some reasons clear? i.e. to explain why it is "a valuable addition to the standard"? Or is that already clear to the NISO I2 working group?

> 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/
Received on Friday, 30 July 2010 09:38:59 UTC

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