RE: Institutional Identifier Re: [Digipres] NISO Seeking Feedback on Institutional Identifier Midterm Report -- responses needed by August 2

Here are my thoughts:

 

HTTP URIs are capable of identifying anything imaginable. Take whatever
"institutional identifier" is currently being imagined and prefix it
like so: http://example.org/institution/{ID}. URL-encode the "ID"
portion if necessary. If the order of tokens in the ID pattern is
unpredictable for a given set of metadata elements, think about ways to
make them predictable.

 

Have someone write and host a little Web server that behaves like so: 

 

http://example.org/institution/{ID} (content-negotiate for HTML or RDF
resulting in a 303 redirect to...)

http://example.org/institution/{ID}.html

http://example.org/institution/{ID}.rdf

 

Have these latter URIs parse the ID to extract metadata tokens and
return them represented in various ontologies like FOAF, vCard, etc.

 

Also consider adding a validation service like so:

 

http://example.org/validate/{ID}

 

If the supplied ID doesn't conform to the prescribed token requirements,
have it return a 400 (Bad Request) status along with an explanation of
the problem.

 

Jeff

 

From: public-xg-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-lld-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of ZENG, MARCIA
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 1:12 PM
To: Herbert Van de Sompel; public-xg-lld@w3.org
Subject: Institutional Identifier Re: [Digipres] NISO Seeking Feedback
on Institutional Identifier Midterm Report -- responses needed by August
2

 

Hi, Herbert and all,
I forwarded your comments to one of the ASIST members Mark Needleman
<mneedlem@ufl.edu> who is on that NISO committee.  He said any
suggestions or comments will be welcome.  
I think it will be great if LLD XG provide some collective comments to
them.  The ASIST Standards Committee will do.
Marcia

On 7/12/10 10:56 AM, "Herbert Van de Sompel" <hvdsomp@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all,

I thought it was worthwhile forwarding the below request for comments
from NISO regarding their ongoing Institutional Identifier effort. 

I have only briefly glanced at the mid-term report, but I found no
indication that this work is informed by a Linked Data perspective. Nor
did I find immediate indications that it could not be implemented in a
way that aligns with Linked Data. 

Most of the use cases listed in the report involve libraries and hence
seem relevant to this group. 

Cheers

Herbert

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Cynthia Hodgson" <chodgson@niso.org>
Date: July 12, 2010 4:28:11 PM CEDT
To: "Cynthia Hodgson" <chodgson@niso.org>
Subject: [Digipres] NISO Seeking Feedback on Institutional Identifier
Midterm Report -- responses needed by August 2
Reply-To: <chodgson@niso.org>

 
The NISO Institutional Identifier (I2) Working Group (WG) has released a
midterm report:  http://www.niso.org/workrooms/i2/midtermreport/

The NISO I2 WG is soliciting feedback on the report and guidance for
the
next steps in developing this standard from individuals and groups
involved
in the digital information transactions.  Stakeholders include
publishers/distributors, libraries, archives, museums,  licensing
agencies,
standards bodies, and service providers, such as library workflow
management
system vendors and copyright clearance  agencies. Anyone involved at any
level in the distribution, licensing, sharing or management of
information
is invited to participate. 

Please read the information below and participate in the evaluation of
our
midterm work by reading the midterm release document and  answering a
few
questions about each development area.  You are the stakeholders for
this
information standard.  We must work to ensure  that it meets your needs,
so
your input is very valuable and  important to us. 

BACKGROUND: 
NISO established the  working group in 2008 to develop an institutional
identifier (I2) to uniquely identify institutions engaged in the digital
information workspace.  The goal of the I2 Working Group is to develop
an
institutional identifier that is globally unique, robust, interoperable,
scalable and able to integrate smoothly with current digital information
workflows.  The working group is currently at the midterm of its efforts
and  hopes to complete its draft specification by December, 2010.
Community
input was requested through surveys and conferences to refine the
objectives, create the metadata and identify scenarios of  need.  We are
currently soliciting midterm review to provide confirmation of our work
to
date, course correction as needed and to  ensure that we have identified
and
are addressing all the issues surrounding this critical enabling
standard.  

 THE PROBLEM SPACE: 
Obtaining, using, sharing, storing and managing  information often
involves
multiple institutions across the digital  information space.  These
institutions must be able to identify each  other and to trust that the
identification is both correct and  unique.  The information managed may
itself be digital (e.g., the  licensing of an e-book) or analog
information
that is managed over  the digital information space (e.g., interlibrary
loan
of a physical  book).  Currently, there are many identifiers in use,
ranging
from  simple naming to established codes.  However, no single identifier

that is globally unique, trustworthy, and able to capture  relationships
among institutions and variant legacy identifiers for  institutions
currently exists.  As a result, transactions are locked   into
proprietary
workflow silos and management of all the digital information activities
of
an institution are not integrated.

THE PROPOSED SOLUTION:
The I2 is proposed as a globally unique,  robust, scalable and
interoperable
identifier with the sole purpose of uniquely identifying institutions.
The
I2 consists of  two  parts: an identifier standard that includes the
metadata needed to  uniquely identify  the organization -- including
documenting  relationships with other institutions that are critical for

establishing identity -- and  a framework for implementation and use.

The I2 is envisioned as a simple, core identifier with the sole  purpose
of
identifying institutions in a robust and trustworthy  manner. 
Workflow-specific implementations, such as regional ILL collaborations
or
ebook licensing services, will leverage the I2.

THE BENEFIT: 
Institutions will only have to request and reuse a  single identifier. 
Institutions will be able to robustly identify every institution engaged
in
an information transaction. Institutions  that engage in many different
information transactions or that work with many different institutions
will
be able to track and manage  institutional activities across multiple
workflows through the use of a single, authoritative identifier.

The Midterm status report and review survey are available at the
following
link.  Please respond by August 2, 2010.

http://www.niso.org/workrooms/i2/midtermreport/

Thank you very much for your support of this lynchpin digital
information
standard.  Your input is very valuable to us and will be carefully
studied
and considered. Please download the report and keep it open to assist
you in
completing the survey.


[Note: This message has been cross-posted to obtain wide input.]

Cynthia Hodgson
NISO Technical Editor Consultant
National Information Standards Organization
Email: chodgson@niso.org
Phone: 301-654-2512





 
==
Herbert Van de Sompel
Digital Library Research & Prototyping
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Research Library
http://public.lanl.gov/herbertv/
tel. +1 505 667 1267