- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 16:48:30 +0000
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-lod@w3.org
(Thanks anyone for helpful comments!) On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> wrote: > Not to be too much of a stickler, but that isn't a spec, and isn't a clear > statement. For instance the scope of "unique" isn't clear, and I can, with > little effort, imagine a scenario where that uniqueness means that no two > researchers have the same identifier (but can have more than one), but they > identify names, and that the "transparent" method is that they have > equivalences among the names. Just to clarify ; ORCIDs are (at least now) claimed by authors themselves, so for instance me (as on http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718 ) covers both publications by "Stian Soiland-Reyes" and my previous name "Stian Soiland" (which is listed as 'Also known as'). Now unlike the various J Smith's, I'm quite lucky in that my new name is (so far!) unique in the world, but without ORCID there could be trouble ahead if my son (same initial S) would become a scientist. > As for the comments about ORCIDS not being suitable for linked data, that is > a very narrow view. Having a large system of person identifiers that many > organizations agree they will use means that there's the possibility of > linking what the people do very easily. That ORCID itself doesn't supply > resolvable URIs (yet) doesn't mean that others can't use those identifiers > when publishing information as linked data. And if they do it will be very > very useful. Exactly, this is why we want to use ORCID! :) The current problem is that the URIs ARE resolvable, and they DO claim to return application/rdf+xml although it is not - so it seems like a bit of a disconnect with the whole web architecture regardless of them exposing RDF or not. > So back to clarification. We need to know what the ORCID identifies > (pair(name, person) or person), and what the definitive URI is for that > ORCID. (let's have one case be UO1) I agree that both of these should be clearly specified by ORCID. It is not the pair with the name, as I have shown for my own profile; but it's unclear if an ORCID identifies a person (me) or a scientist (ie. could I put my ORCID as the creator of my family photos?). I know such nitpicking that could go very deep ("me yesterday with a red t-shirt!") - but some clarification is needed to know if we can call them foaf:Person's or just something related to such persons. (For instance, W3C PROV has the concept of prov:specializationOf which could be appropriate on a prov:Person, for instance when the person prov:actedOnBehalfOf an organization. http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#specializationOf - in this model the ORCID URI can still identify an agent). > I would then expect many other groups to publish information whose > foaf:primaryTopic is what the above URI identifies. OK.. so to take Kingsleys example you would expect my server example.com (which has nothing to do with orcid) to say: > GET http://example.com/stian.rdf HTTP/1.1 200 OK HTTP/1.1 Content-Type: text/turtle <> a foaf:PersonalProfileDocument ; foaf:primaryTopic <http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718> ; <http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718> a foaf:Person ; foaf:name "Stian Soiland-Reyes" . ? I thought a foaf:PersonalProfileDocument was one which foaf:maker was its foaf:primaryTopic. Now I feel I can't go and make "personal" FOAF profiles for people I find in ORCID - so I can do the above in my own FOAF file, but I can't do that when I simply want to talk about someone else. -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team School of Computer Science The University of Manchester
Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2013 16:49:24 UTC