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

Re: Resolving ISSUE-14, dcat:permanentIdentifier

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 20:35:19 -0000
Message-ID: <01960545f285c840ac35313c926d1bf6.squirrel@webmail.sophia.w3.org>
To: "John Erickson" <olyerickson@gmail.com>
Cc: "Richard Cyganiak" <richard@cyganiak.de>, "Phil Archer" <phila@w3.org>, public-gld-wg@w3.org
I can only apologise for skim reading mail. Now with more care... I am v
happy NOT to have dcat:permanentIdentifier - philosophically it feels
icky. So - do nothing gets my vote. I was trying to express that if others
have strong use cases for the property then I wouldn't object.

Phil

> Hi Guys!
>
>> Let me clarify that the current spec *does not* include anything like
>> dcat:permanentIdentifier
>
> Okay...
>
>> 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?
>
> Sorry; I was confused as to the root objection. I thought PhilA was
> arguing for keeping it, not arguing against doing something (I was
> arguing for doing something).
>
>> 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?
>
> dcat:permanentIdentifier is semantic sugar that might be nice but is
> not required (IMHO) to move forward. So I'm not highly motivated...
>
>> John, the spec *does* point out the possibility of using dc:identifier
>> (with a literal value), which I think is sufficient for DOIs etc.
>
> +1 to this, and I am happy with this. Furthermore, I do not see
> anything restricting multiple instances of dc:identifier, a fact which
> accommodates multiple identifiers.
>
> Ship it without dcat:permanentIdentifier ...
>
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> John S. Erickson, Ph.D.
> Director, Web Science Operations
> Tetherless World Constellation (RPI)
> <http://tw.rpi.edu> <olyerickson@gmail.com>
> Twitter & Skype: olyerickson
>


-- 

Sent from my phone. Please excuse typos.
Received on Monday, 11 March 2013 20:35:44 UTC

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