W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-gld-wg@w3.org > March 2013

Re: Resolving ISSUE-14, dcat:permanentIdentifier

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:33:03 +0000
Cc: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, public-gld-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <F857CE7C-DDD5-4857-92C2-8C3A512B60AD@cyganiak.de>
To: John Erickson <olyerickson@gmail.com>
Phil, John, I'm confused.

Let me clarify that the current spec *does not* include anything like dcat:permanentIdentifier.

Some time ago, I proposed adding such a property, as it seems important. That's ISSUE-14. But since it appeared that we couldn't get consensus, and in the interest of moving forward, I now proposed to POSTPONE the issue, in other words, do nothing.

Phil, you seem to be hating dcat:permanentIdentifier, but also give a -1 to my proposal of doing nothing?

John, you say that you agree with Phil, but it sounds like you actually *want* dcat:permanentIdentifier?

John, just *how much* do you want it? I read this as saying that you will formally object to DCAT moving forward, unless we add dcat:permanentIdentifier?

John, the spec *does* point out the possibility of using dc:identifier (with a literal value), which I think is sufficient for DOIs etc.

Best,
Richard


On 8 Mar 2013, at 12:57, John Erickson wrote:

> +1 to Phil's comments and -10 to dropping dcat:permanentIdentifier
> 
> With the advent of DataCite DOIs and other PIDs for scientific data
> including EPIC and (soon to be announced) DCO-IDs --- all based on the
> Handle System --- and with the emerging application of DCAT to
> research data management, I strongly endorse inclusion of a field for
> the PID.
> 
> John
> 
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:
>> Instinctively I dislike this intensely. It encourages bad practice by
>> suggesting that identifiers for data sets should all be treated as ephemeral
>> except the special case of the dcat:permanentIdentifier. Gah!
>> 
>> If you create a catalogue as an aggregate of other catalogues (like
>> publicdata.eu) then you jolly well SHOULD use the original URIs from the
>> original catalogue. If you don't/can't/won't, then at least have the decency
>> to include owl:sameAs links.
>> 
>> As ever, I am aware that I take a purist view and that practicality can play
>> a trump card - meaning that if there are cases where the reason for wanting
>> permanentIdentifier is something a lot better than "we like the way we do it
>> so we're going to use our lovely foo.aspx?sessionID=claptrap" URIs but we
>> recognise that your well designed
>> http://{domain}/{type}/{concept}/{reference} URI might have something going
>> for it" then OK, I won't be intransigent - but I don't like it.
>> 
>> So, -1 from me, but I remain open to persuasion if the evidence is there.
>> 
>> Phil.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 08/03/2013 11:26, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>>> 
>>> There are two remaining issues on DCAT that we couldn't address in the
>>> telco. A Proposals for one of them is below. If you have any objection to
>>> the proposed course of action, please say so via email.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ISSUE-14: add dcat:permanentIdentifier property
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/14
>>> 
>>> With some regret, I have to say:
>>> 
>>> PROPOSAL: Postpone ISSUE-14, as there is no consensus on such a property.
>>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Phil Archer
>> W3C eGovernment
>> 
>> http://philarcher.org
>> +44 (0)7887 767755
>> @philarcher1
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> John S. Erickson, Ph.D.
> Director, Web Science Operations
> Tetherless World Constellation (RPI)
> <http://tw.rpi.edu> <olyerickson@gmail.com>
> Twitter & Skype: olyerickson
> 
Received on Monday, 11 March 2013 19:33:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:38 UTC