Re: dwbp-ISSUE-46 (PIDs): How should we handle the issue of persistent URI design? [Use Cases & Requirements Document]

Thanks Makx

On 01/10/2014 09:13, Makx Dekkers wrote:
>
> I think this is about all we can say: "Data should be persistently identifiable.". The only thing maybe is explain a little bit more what this means, e.g.
>
> The identifier that is assigned to a particular resource should resolve, at least for the foreseeable future, to that same resource or to information why the resource is no longer there.

I like the simple approach for the reasons you give.

What worries me is that we risk getting into a long debate about whether 
a DOI resolves or not (IMO of course it doesn't - it only resolves if 
you stick it on the end of a URL in which case it is a different 
identifier) and what the semantics of a DOI may be (or ORCID or any of 
the other similar schemes).


>
> The actual syntax of URIs can vary widely, because an organisation will choose a design that reflects the way they can make and maintain the commitment to persistence. Some organisations will opt for a semantically rich syntax (such as the UK Gov approach); others will follow an (almost) semantics-free design like Tomas' COMURI proposal.
>
> As organisations might have good arguments for selecting a particular design, this group may not be able to declare one approach 'best practice' beyond saying that (as someone once said) "persistence is non-negotiable".

Again, I like that. I'd be in favour of encouraging a more structured 
approach, as in the UK examples, but agree we need to recognise, always, 
that people can only build on top of what they have, technically and 
institutionally.

Phil


>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Data on the Web Best Practices Working Group Issue Tracker
>> [mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 9:47 AM
>> To: public-dwbp-wg@w3.org
>> Subject: dwbp-ISSUE-46 (PIDs): How should we handle the issue of
>> persistent URI design? [Use Cases & Requirements Document]
>>
>> dwbp-ISSUE-46 (PIDs): How should we handle the issue of persistent URI
>> design? [Use Cases & Requirements Document]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/track/issues/46
>>
>> Raised by: Phil Archer
>> On product: Use Cases & Requirements Document
>>
>> As of 2014-10-01, the UCR does not explicitly call for advice on URI
>> design/design for persistence. It is, however, implied in R-
>> PersistentIdentification which says "Data should be persistently
>> identifiable."
>>
>> Do we need to add any detail to this? Or an additional requirement? Or
>> do we think we've covered it?
>>
>> Context is all. In W3C space, persistent identifier means persistent
>> URI. For some communities, that doesn't match the culture (scientific
>> publishing for example).
>>
>
>
>
>

-- 


Phil Archer
W3C Data Activity Lead
http://www.w3.org/2013/data/

http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1

Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2014 09:26:31 UTC