Re: Institutional Identifier (I2) comments (was: RE: Institutional Identifier Re: [Digipres] NISO Seeking Feedback on ...)

Hi all,

I think that the last statement :
"(*) provide guidance on what existing and/or new RDF vocabularies
should be used when publishing rdf data."
is very general.
It gives the impression that we require NISO to provide general
guidance on the use of RDF.
Maybe we can make it a little more specific by adding "when publishing
RDF data about institutions" or something like that.

We have a nice set of comments now !
Best,

Emmanuelle

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 6:37 PM, ZENG, MARCIA <mzeng@kent.edu> wrote:
> Hi, all,
> Thanks Herbert to initiate the discussion and thank Ed to give a final touch
> on the draft comments.
> Here is the text we are going to send.  If you have any suggestions, please
> let me know by August 1st.
> Marcia
> P.S. FYI: The NISO Institutional Identifier (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. [1]
> ------------------------------------------
> Comments on the NISO Institutional Identifier (I2) Working Group  Midterm
> Report[1]
> from members of the W3C Library Linked Data Incubator Group (LLD XG) [2]
> Note: given the tight deadline, the comments have not been approved by the
> group as a whole.
>
> 1 The I2 group should bring a Linked Data perspective into its next phase of
> work.
>
> 2.The Linked Data perspective may require the I2 WG to revisit its purposes
> in order to align its ‘information supply chain’ with linked data.
> (Currently #2 purpose is: "Identify institutions engaged in the selection,
> purchase, licensing, storage, description, management, and delivery of
> information (“information supply chain”).”) [2]
>
> 3 URI should be considered in the final version of metadata. (currently the
> report states that "The initial version of the metadata did not include the
> URI. This element will become part of the final version of the metadata if
> it is deemed a valuable addition to the standard.”) [2]
>
> 4. For the framework for implementation and use part, the spec should at
> least:
>
> (*) acknowledge that these identifiers will be "actualized" as HTTP URIs.
> (*) suggest how to HTTP URI-ize the identifiers;
> (*) decide whether those HTTP URIs are for info or non-info resources and
> show the consequences. Obvious from where I stand what the answer is.
> (*) HTTP URI patterns for "APIs" that leverage the identifiers.
> (*) recommend that data be made available using RDF serializations (rdf/xml,
> RDFa, turtle) when URLs are resolved.
> (*) provide guidance on what existing and/or new RDF vocabularies should be
> used when publishing rdf data.
>
> [1] http://www.niso.org/workrooms/i2/midtermreport/
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/
>

Received on Friday, 30 July 2010 07:57:27 UTC