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: Emmanuelle Bermes <emmanuelle.bermes@bnf.fr>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:30:58 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTimWNOJ8_Nv7JRhX73BvEZCb5zFiaxjFRVtJUhJt@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "public-xg-lld@w3.org" <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 11:52 AM, William Waites
<william.waites@okfn.org> wrote:
> 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"

+1

>
> 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?

In a linked data perspective, I guess we should advocate strongly in
favor of a dereferenceable URI approach.

Emmanuelle


>
> Cheers,
> -w
>
> --
> 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
>                http://ordf.org/
>
>



-- 
=====
Emmanuelle Bermès - http://www.bnf.fr
Manue - http://www.figoblog.org
Received on Friday, 30 July 2010 11:31:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 30 July 2010 11:31:32 GMT