For your interest: Persistence Statements: Describing Digital Stickiness

I just found this article:

Persistence Statements: Describing Digital Stickiness
https://datascience.codata.org/articles/10.5334/dsj-2017-039/ <https://datascience.codata.org/articles/10.5334/dsj-2017-039/>

"In this paper we present a draft vocabulary for making “persistence statements.” […] Scholars increasingly use scientific and cultural assets in digital form, but choosing which among many objects to cite for the long term can be difficult. There are few well-defined terms to describe the various kinds and qualities of persistence that object repositories and identifier resolvers do or don’t provide. Given an object’s identifier, one should be able to query a provider to retrieve human- and machine-readable information to help judge the level of service to expect and help gauge whether the identifier is durable enough, as a sort of long-term bet, to include in a citation. "

This is really just a FYI, and I do not think we should act on it in the WG work, except maybe in the best practices note at some point, related to metadata.

One slight technical consequence for us may be that when we get down to the details on how we would encode metadata entries, we should make it sure that we can properly make statements on identifiers that we list in the manifest (ie, we should be able to qualify a specific identifier). That may be useful beyond what this article says.

If you guys feel it is worthwhile, I can add this to our reading list.

Ivan

----
Ivan Herman, W3C 
Publishing@W3C Technical Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ <http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/>
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 <http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704>