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: William Waites <william.waites@okfn.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 10:52:33 +0100
Message-ID: <4C52A0E1.9020704@okfn.org>
To: "public-xg-lld@w3.org" <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
On 10-07-30 10:38, Jodi Schneider wrote:
> "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?

How about:

"Dereferencing the URI with an HTTP request is the simplest and most
straightforward way to obtain a copy of the metadata"

On URI vs. URL, does it make sense at all to suggest the registration of
a urn namespace with IANA? Or do non-dereferenceable URIs like that just
muddy the waters?


William Waites           <william.waites@okfn.org>
Mob: +44 789 798 9965    Open Knowledge Foundation
Fax: +44 131 464 4948                Edinburgh, UK

RDF Indexing, Clustering and Inferencing in Python
Received on Friday, 30 July 2010 09:54:06 UTC

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