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: Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 09:40:28 -0400
Message-ID: <52E301F960B30049ADEFBCCF1CCAEF5909291C22@OAEXCH4SERVER.oa.oclc.org>
To: "Herbert Van de Sompel" <hvdsomp@gmail.com>, <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Here are some words others can throw rocks at.

 

I^2 identifiers should be http URIs so that agents anywhere in the world can easily dereference the identifier and get back information about the institution. This http identifier should behave according to Linked Data conventions so that humans and machines can use HTTP content negotiation to retrieve a convenient representation (HTML, XML, RDF, etc.) without confusing the institution's identity with the identity of the various web document representations.

 

http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html

http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/

 

See my earlier OWL and example mockup for details.

 

Jeff

 

 

From: public-xg-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-lld-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Herbert Van de Sompel
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 1:40 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,

 

I am hearing on the grapevine that it would be beneficial to add a few words about "why" I2 should care about a HTTP, Linked Data approach. There seems to be a lack of understanding of the possible value.

 

Cheers

 

Herbert

 

On Jul 30, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Emmanuelle Bermes wrote:





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

 

==

Herbert Van de Sompel

Digital Library Research & Prototyping

Los Alamos National Laboratory, Research Library

http://public.lanl.gov/herbertv/

tel. +1 505 667 1267 

 

 

 

 

 
Received on Saturday, 31 July 2010 13:45:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 31 July 2010 13:45:12 GMT