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

Hi, all, Thanks for the comments.  I will try to incorporate into the final comment.

One thing I need to point out is that the standard is for institutional identifiers and those 'metadata' elements are for identifying the organizations.  It is not about obtaining metadata. [1]

Cheers,
Marcia

[1]    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.
] http://www.niso.org/workrooms/i2/midtermreport/

On 7/30/10 5:52 AM, "William Waites" <william.waites@okfn.org> wrote:

On 10-07-30 10:38, Jodi Schneider wrote:
> "The URI should be included in the final version of the metadata"
>
> Is it useful to make some reasons clear? i.e. to explain why it is "a
> valuable addition to the standard"? Or is that already clear to the
> NISO I2 working group?

How about:

"Dereferencing the URI with an HTTP request is the simplest and most
straightforward way to obtain a copy of the metadata"

On URI vs. URL, does it make sense at all to suggest the registration of
a urn namespace with IANA? Or do non-dereferenceable URIs like that just
muddy the waters?

Cheers,
-w

--
William Waites           <william.waites@okfn.org>
Mob: +44 789 798 9965    Open Knowledge Foundation
Fax: +44 131 464 4948                Edinburgh, UK

RDF Indexing, Clustering and Inferencing in Python
                http://ordf.org/