- From: makxdekkers via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 09:33:02 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
@agbeltran In my mind, the distinction between 'primary' and 'secondary' identifiers is related to what you want to do with them. The 'primary' identifier in @riccardoAlbertoni's proposal and at https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/release/dcat-ap-how-manage-duplicates, is used for (a) linking back to the orginal publication of that dataset, and (b) to (string-)compare identifiers to see if two descriptions refer to the same dataset. The 'secondary' identifiers are ones that play a role in a wider context, and for which you need to declare that context to understand what they are. >From what I remember of the development of ADMS, the adms:Identifier class was created primarily for non-resolvable identifiers. For example, a prublisher might have an identifier "XYZ123", either a local production number, or coined in some other (non-Web) context, in which case it would be necessary to express what it was or where to look it up. During development of DCAT-AP, it was noted that in situations that descriptions were exchanged, shared or harvested, intermediaries could change, e.g. correct or enhance, a description along the way. It was then agreed that there needed to be a way to refer back to the original description of a dataset, and the notion of primary and secondary identifiers was introduced with different usage. It might be that this is more an issue for a profile than for the base standard, though. -- GitHub Notification of comment by makxdekkers Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/67#issuecomment-442380513 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2018 09:33:03 UTC