W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-wg@w3.org > January 2015

RE: BP 7, provide unique identifiers

From: Makx Dekkers <mail@makxdekkers.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 10:28:44 +0100
To: "'Carlos Iglesias'" <carlos.iglesias.moro@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Annette Greiner'" <amgreiner@lbl.gov>, "'Public DWBP WG'" <public-dwbp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003301d036ee$fc89ccb0$f59d6610$@makxdekkers.com>
My qualifier was “as far as these parts are likely to be interesting by themselves for direct access and re-use”. We could have examples of weather data (an identifier for the whole map versus identifiers for the data from individual sensors) or legislation (an identifier for a law versus identifiers for individual articles).






From: Carlos Iglesias [mailto:carlos.iglesias.moro@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 10:22 AM
To: Makx Dekkers
Cc: Annette Greiner; Public DWBP WG
Subject: Re: BP 7, provide unique identifiers


I would propose the by-line to read:

"Data MUST be associated with a unique identifier"


Great, a BP title without the word "URI" in it would be the ideal (although that's will be the only implementation option later).



In the Why section there could then be a short discussion about the
granularity of the identification, e.g. not just datasets as a whole,
but also parts of datasets as far as these parts are likely to be
interesting by themselves for direct access and re-use.


Agree, provided that the discourse will be in the line of "the more granularity the best", not "you must have the biggest granularity level" 



There is also a bit of duplication in the text: the Why section starts
with the same sentence as the approach section. This text should be only
in the approach section because it is about how it's done not why.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Annette Greiner [mailto:amgreiner@lbl.gov <mailto:amgreiner@lbl.gov> ]
> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 11:12 PM
> To: Public DWBP WG
> Subject: BP 7, provide unique identifiers
> Looking at BP 7, I don't understand the idea. I'm wondering what we
> are defining as a "data resource". From the text, it seems we are
> using it in the sense of whatever is linked to. That seems fair,
> because datasets can be available as a single file or several files or
> by separate API requests for very specific queries, etc.  So, if a
> data resource is a data element that is linked to, then it is
> represented by a URL. The discussion of URNs is clearly out of scope
> for us, as they are not on the web. That leaves URLs, but then the
> best practice comes down to ensuring a unique URL for whatever has a
> URL. I think it would be impossible to not do that an still put
> something on the web. In the context of data on the web, I don't think
> much of this best practice is in scope, and the bit that is in scope
> is tautological.
> -Annette
> --
> Annette Greiner
> NERSC Data and Analytics Services
> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
> 510-495-2935





Carlos Iglesias. 

Internet & Web Consultant.

+34 687 917 759 

 <mailto:contact@carlosiglesias.es> contact@carlosiglesias.es 


 <http://es.linkedin.com/in/carlosiglesiasmoro/en> http://es.linkedin.com/in/carlosiglesiasmoro/en
Received on Friday, 23 January 2015 09:29:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:39:31 UTC